10514 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R6–ES–2008–008; 92220–1113–0000; 

ABC Code: C6] 

RIN 1018–AU53 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Final Rule Designating the 

Northern Rocky Mountain Population 

of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population 

Segment and Removing This Distinct 

Population Segment From the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service, we or us), hereby 

establishes a distinct population 

segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis 

lupus) in the Northern Rocky Mountains 

(NRM) of the United States (U.S.) and 

removes this DPS from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

The NRM gray wolf DPS encompasses 

the eastern one-third of Washington and 

Oregon, a small part of north-central 

Utah, and all of Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming. Based on the best scientific 

and commercial data available, the NRM 

DPS is no longer an endangered or 

threatened species pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

The NRM DPS has exceeded its 

biological recovery goals, and all threats 

in the foreseeable future have been 

sufficiently reduced or eliminated. 

The States of Idaho (2002) and 

Montana (2003) adopted State laws and 

management plans that meet the 

requirements of the Act and will 

conserve a recovered wolf population 

into the foreseeable future. In 2007, 

following a change in State law, 

Wyoming drafted and approved a 

revised wolf management plan 

(Wyoming 2007). We have determined 

that this plan meets the requirements of 

the Act as providing adequate regulatory 

protections to conserve Wyoming’s 

portion of a recovered wolf population 

into the foreseeable future. Our 

determination is conditional upon the 

2007 Wyoming wolf management law 

(W.S. 11–6–302 et seq. and 23–1–101, et 

seq. in House Bill 0213) being fully in 

effect and the wolf management plan 

being legally authorized by Wyoming 

statutes. If the law is not in effect 

(discussed in more detail below) within 

20 days from the date of this 

publication, we will withdraw this final 

rule and replace it with an alternate 

final rule that removes the Act’s 

protections throughout all of the DPS, 

except the significant portion of the gray 

wolf’s range in northwestern Wyoming 

outside the National Parks. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

March 28, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Comments and 

materials received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in preparation of 

this final rule, are available for 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours, at our Montana 

office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, 

Montana 59601. Call (406) 449–5225, 

extension 204 to make arrangements. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf 

Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, at our Helena office 

(see ADDRESSES) or telephone (406) 449– 

5225, extension 204. Individuals who 

are hearing-impaired or speechimpaired may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY 

assistance. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Gray wolves are the largest wild 

members of the dog family (Canidae). 

Adult gray wolves range from 18–80 

kilograms (kg) (40–175 pounds (lb)) 

depending upon sex and region (Mech 

1974, p. 1). In the NRM, adult male gray 

wolves average over 45 kg (100 lb), but 

may weigh up to 60 kg (130 lb). Females 

weigh slightly less than males. Wolves’ 

fur color is frequently a grizzled gray, 

but it can vary from pure white to coal 

black (Gipson et al. 2002, p. 821). 

Gray wolves have a circumpolar range 

including North America, Europe, and 

Asia. As Europeans began settling the 

U.S., they poisoned, trapped, and shot 

wolves, causing this once widespread 

species to be eradicated from most of its 

range in the 48 conterminous States 

(Mech 1970, pp. 31–34; McIntyre 1995). 

Gray wolf populations were eliminated 

from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as 

well as adjacent southwestern Canada 

by the 1930s (Young and Goldman 1944, 

p. 414). 

Wolves primarily prey on medium 

and large mammals. Wolves normally 

live in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the 

NRM, pack sizes average about 10 

wolves in protected areas, but a few 

complex packs have been substantially 

bigger in some areas of Yellowstone 

National Park (YNP) (Smith et al. 2006, 

p. 243; Service et al. 2007, Tables 1–3). 

Packs typically occupy large distinct 

territories from 518 to 1,295 square 

kilometers (km2) (200 to 500 square 

miles (mi2)) and defend these areas from 

other wolves or packs. Once a given area 

is occupied by resident wolf packs, it 

becomes saturated and wolf numbers 

become regulated by the amount of 

available prey, intra-species conflict, 

other forms of mortality, and dispersal. 

Dispersing wolves may cover large areas 

(See Defining the Boundaries of the 

NRM DPS) as they try to join other 

packs or attempt to form their own pack 

in unoccupied habitat (Mech and 

Boitani 2003, p. 11–17). 

Typically, only the top-ranking 

(‘‘alpha’’) male and female in each pack 

breed and produce pups (Packard 2003, 

p. 38; Smith et al. 2006, pp. 243–4; 

Service et al. 2007, Tables 1–3). Females 

and males typically begin breeding as 2- 

year-olds and may annually produce 

young until they are over 10 years old. 

Litters are typically born in April and 

range from 1 to 11 pups, but average 

around 5 pups (Service et al. 1989– 

2007, Tables 1–3). Most years, four of 

these five pups survive until winter 

(Service et al. 1989–2007, Tables 1–3). 

Wolves can live 13 years (Holyan et al. 

2005, p. 446), but the average lifespan 

in the NRM is less than 4 years (Smith 

et al. 2006, p. 245). Pup production and 

survival can increase when wolf density 

is lower and food availability per wolf 

increases (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). 

Pack social structure is very adaptable 

and resilient. Breeding members can be 

quickly replaced either from within or 

outside the pack and pups can be reared 

by another pack member should their 

parents die (Packard 2003, p. 38; 

Brainerd et al. 2008; Mech 2006, p. 

1482). Consequently, wolf populations 

can rapidly recover from severe 

disruptions, such as very high levels of 

human-caused mortality or disease. 

After severe declines, wolf populations 

can more than double in just 2 years if 

mortality is reduced; increases of nearly 

100 percent per year have been 

documented in low-density suitable 

habitat (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 181–183; 

Service et al. 2007, Table 4). 

For detailed information on the 

biology of this species see the ‘‘Biology 

and Ecology of Gray Wolves’’ section of 

the April 1, 2003, final rule to reclassify 

and remove the gray wolf from the list 

of endangered and threatened wildlife 

in portions of the conterminous U.S. 

(2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR 

15804). 

Previous Federal Actions 

In 1974, four subspecies of gray wolf 

were listed as endangered, including the 

NRM gray wolf (Canis lupus irremotus), 

the eastern timber wolf (C.l. lycaon) in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10515 

the northern Great Lakes region, the 

Mexican wolf (C.l. baileyi) in Mexico 

and the southwestern U.S., and the 

Texas gray wolf (C.l. monstrabilis) of 

Texas and Mexico (39 FR 1171, January 

4, 1974). In 1978, we published a rule 

(43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) relisting 

the gray wolf as endangered at the 

species level (C. lupus) throughout the 

conterminous 48 States and Mexico, 

except for Minnesota, where the gray 

wolf was reclassified to threatened. At 

that time, critical habitat was designated 

in Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. 

On February 8, 2007, we established a 

Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS and 

removed it from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6052). 

On November 22, 1994, we designated 

portions of Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming as two nonessential 

experimental population areas for the 

gray wolf under section 10(j) of the Act 

including the Yellowstone Experimental 

Population Area (59 FR 60252, 

November 22, 1994) and the Central 

Idaho Experimental Population Area (59 

FR 60266, November 22, 1994). These 

designations, which are found at 50 CFR 

17.40(i), assisted us in initiating gray 

wolf reintroduction projects in central 

Idaho and in the Greater Yellowstone 

Area (GYA). In 2005 and 2008, we 

revised these regulations to provide 

increased management flexibility for 

this recovered wolf population in States 

with Service-approved post-delisting 

wolf management plans (70 FR 1286, 

January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4270, January 28, 

2008). The revisions are at 50 CFR 

17.84(n). 

The NRM wolf population is a 

metapopulation comprised of three core 

recovery areas. It has a range (wolf 

breeding pairs, wolf packs, and routine 

dispersing wolves) that encompasses all 

of Idaho, most of Montana and 

Wyoming, and parts of adjacent States 

(Service 2005, p. 1–2). It achieved its 

numerical and distributional recovery 

goals at the end of 2000 (Service et al. 

2007, Table 4). The temporal portion of 

the recovery goal was achieved in 2002 

when the numerical and distributional 

recovery goals were exceeded for the 

third successive year (Service et al. 

2007, Table 4). To meet the Act’s 

requirements, Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming needed to develop postdelisting wolf management plans to 

ensure that adequate regulatory 

mechanisms would exist should the 

Act’s protections be removed. In 2004, 

the Service determined that Montana 

and Idaho’s laws and wolf management 

plans were adequate to assure that their 

shares of the NRM wolf population 

would be maintained above recovery 

levels (see Recovery section). However, 

we determined the 2003 Wyoming 

legislation and wolf management plan 

(Wyoming 2003) were not adequate to 

assume that Wyoming’s portion of the 

NRM wolf population would be 

maintained above recovery levels 

(Williams 2004). Wyoming challenged 

this determination, but the Federal 

District Court in Wyoming dismissed 

the case (360 F. Supp 2nd 1214, D. 

Wyoming 2005). Wyoming appealed 

that decision, and on April 3, 2006, the 

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld 

the district court decision (442 F. 3rd 

1262). 

On July 19, 2005, we received a 

petition from the Office of the Governor, 

State of Wyoming and the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Commission (WGFC) to 

revise the listing status for the gray wolf 

by establishing a NRM DPS and to 

remove it from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(Freudenthal 2005). On August 1, 2006, 

we announced a 12-month finding that 

the petitioned action (delisting in all of 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) was not 

warranted because the 2003 Wyoming 

State law and wolf management plan 

did not provide the necessary regulatory 

mechanisms to ensure that Wyoming’s 

numerical and distributional share of a 

recovered NRM wolf population would 

be conserved (71 FR 43410). Wyoming 

challenged this finding in Federal 

District Court (State of Wyoming, et al. 

v. USDOI, CA No. 06CV0245J). 

Wyoming has indicated that they will 

deem the claims in the pending 

litigation settled and will request that 

the court dismiss the litigation upon 

publication of this final rule by 

February 28, 2008 (Freudenthal 2007b). 

On February 8, 2007, we proposed to 

designate the NRM DPS of the gray wolf 

and to delist all or most portions of the 

NRM DPS (72 FR 6106). Specifically, we 

proposed to delist wolves in Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming, and parts of 

Washington, Oregon, and Utah. The 

proposal noted that the area in 

northwestern Wyoming outside the 

National Parks (i.e., YNP, Grand Teton 

National Park, and John D. Rockefeller 

Memorial Parkway) would only be 

delisted in the final rule if adequate 

State regulatory mechanisms were 

developed. On July 6, 2007, the Service 

extended the comment period in order 

to consider a 2007 revised Wyoming 

wolf management plan and State law 

that we believed, if implemented, could 

allow the wolves in northwestern 

Wyoming to be removed from the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(72 FR 36939). On November 16, 2007, 

the WGFC unanimously approved the 

2007 Wyoming Plan (Cleveland 2007, p. 

1). We then determined this plan 

provides adequate regulatory 

protections to conserve Wyoming’s 

portion of a recovered wolf population 

into the foreseeable future (Hall 2007, p. 

1–2). Our determination was 

conditional upon the 2007 Wyoming 

wolf management law being fully in 

effect and the wolf management plan 

being legally authorized by Wyoming 

statutes. The plan automatically goes 

into effect upon the Governor’s 

certification to the Wyoming Secretary 

of State that all of the provisions found 

in the 2007 Wyoming wolf management 

law have been met (W.S. §§ 23–1–101 et 

sec.; discussed in further detail in 

Factor D below) (Freudenthal 2007b, p. 

1–3). 

For detailed information on previous 

Federal actions also see the 2003 

reclassification rule (68 FR 15804, April 

1, 2003), the 2006 advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPR) (71 FR 

6634, February 8, 2006), the 12-month 

finding on Wyoming’s petition to delist 

(71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006), and the 

February 8, 2007, proposed rule to 

designate the NRM population of gray 

wolf as a DPS and remove this DPS from 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife (72 FR 6106). 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment 

Policy Overview 

Pursuant to the Act, we consider if 

information is sufficient to indicate that 

listing any species, subspecies, or, for 

vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa may 

be warranted. To interpret and 

implement the DPS provision of the Act 

and congressional guidance, the Service 

and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) published a policy 

regarding the recognition of distinct 

vertebrate population segments under 

the Act (61 FR 4722–4725, February 7, 

1996). Under this policy, three factors 

are considered in a decision regarding 

the establishment and listing, 

reclassification, or delisting of a DPS. 

The first two factors determine whether 

the population segment is a valid DPS—

(1) discreteness of the population 

segment in relation to the remainder of 

the taxon, and (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the taxon to 

which it belongs. If a population meets 

both tests, it is a DPS. Then the third 

factor, the population segment’s 

conservation status, is evaluated in 

relation to the Act’s standards for 

listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., 

is the DPS endangered or threatened). 

Defining the Boundaries of the NRM 

DPS 

We defined the geographic boundaries 

for the area to be evaluated for DPS 

status based on discreteness and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10516 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

significance as defined by our DPS 

policy. The DPS policy allows an 

artificial (e.g., State line) or manmade 

(e.g., road or highway) boundary to be 

used as a boundary of convenience for 

clearly identifying the geographic area 

for a DPS. The NRM DPS includes all 

of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the 

eastern third of Washington and Oregon, 

and a small part of north central Utah. 

Specifically, the DPS includes that 

portion of Washington east of Highway 

97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa and 

that portion of Washington east of 

Highway 395 south of Mesa. It includes 

that portion of Oregon east of Highway 

395 and Highway 78 north of Burns 

Junction and that portion of Oregon east 

of Highway 95 south of Burns Junction. 

Finally, the NRM DPS includes that 

portion of Utah east of Highway 84 and 

north of Highway 80. The center of 

these roads is deemed the border of the 

NRM DPS (See Figure 1). 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10517 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C One factor we considered in defining 

the boundaries of the NRM DPS was the 

current distribution of known wolf 

packs in 2006 (Service et al. 2007, 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2ER27FE08.025</GPH>
10518 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Figure 1) (except four packs in 

northwestern Wyoming that did not 

persist). We also examined the annual 

distribution of wolf packs from 2002 

(the first year the population exceeded 

the recovery goal) through 2006 (Service 

et al. 2003–2007, Figure 1; Bangs et al. 

in press). Because outer distribution 

changed little in these years, we used 

the 2004 data because it had already 

been analyzed in the February 8, 2006 

ANPR (71 FR 6634). Wolf packs have 

been documented in Montana, Idaho, or 

Wyoming so we include these three 

States in the DPS. 

Dispersal distances also played a key 

role in determining the boundaries for 

the NRM DPS. We examined the known 

dispersal distances of over 200 marked 

dispersing wolves from the NRM from 

1993 through 2005 (Jimenez et al. in 

prep.). These data indicate that the 

average dispersal distance of wolves 

from the NRM was about 97 km (60 mi) 

(Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; 

Jimenez et al. in prep; Thiessen 2007, p. 

33). We determined that 300 km (190 

mi), three times the average dispersal 

distance, was a breakpoint in our data 

for unusually long-distance dispersal 

out from existing wolf pack territories 

(Jimenez et al. in prep., Figure 2 and 3). 

Only 10 wolves (none of which 

subsequently bred) have dispersed 

farther outside the core population areas 

and remained in the United States. 

None of these wolves returned to the 

core recovery areas in Montana, Idaho, 

or Wyoming. Only dispersal from the 

NRM wolf packs to areas within the 

United States was considered in these 

calculations because we were trying to 

determine the appropriate NRM DPS 

boundaries within the U.S. Dispersers to 

Canada were not considered in our 

calculation of average dispersal distance 

because the distribution of suitable 

habitat and wolves and level of human 

persecution in Canada is significantly 

different than in the U.S., potentially 

affecting wolf dispersal patterns. We 

plotted average dispersal distance and 

three times the average dispersal 

distance from existing wolf pack 

territories in the NRM. The resulting 

map indicated a wide area where wolf 

dispersal was common enough to 

support intermittent additional pack 

establishment from the core recovery 

areas given the availability of patches of 

nearby suitable habitat (Service 2005, p. 

1–2). Our specific data on wolf dispersal 

in the NRM may not be applicable to 

other areas of North America (Mech and 

Boitani 2003, pp. 13–16). 

We also examined suitable wolf 

habitat in Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 2006, pp. 555–

558) and throughout the western U.S. 

(Carroll et al. 2003, p. 538; Carroll et al. 

2006, pp. 27–30) by comparing the 

biological and physical characteristics 

of areas currently occupied by wolf 

packs with the characteristics of 

adjacent areas that remain unoccupied 

by wolf packs. The basic findings and 

predictions of those models (Carroll et 

al. 2003, p. 541; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 

32; Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559) were 

similar in many respects. Suitable wolf 

habitat in the NRM DPS is typically 

characterized by public land, 

mountainous forested habitat, abundant 

year-round wild ungulate populations, 

lower road density, lower numbers of 

domestic livestock that were only 

present seasonally, few domestic sheep 

(Ovis sp.), low agricultural use, and low 

human populations (see Factor A). The 

models indicate that a large block of 

suitable wolf habitat exists in central 

Idaho and the GYA, and to a smaller 

extent in northwestern Montana. These 

findings support the recommendations 

of the 1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 

1987) that identified those three areas as 

the most likely locations to support a 

recovered wolf population and are 

consistent with the actual distribution 

of all wolf breeding pairs in the NRM 

since 1986 (Bangs et al. 1998, Figure 1; 

Service et al. 1999–2007, Figures 1–4, 

Tables 1–3). The models indicate little 

habitat is suitable to support wolf packs 

within the portion of the NRM DPS in 

eastern Montana, southern Idaho, 

eastern Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, 

or northcentral Utah (See Factor A). 

Unsuitable habitat also was important 

in determining the boundaries of the 

NRM DPS. Model predictions by 

Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) and Carroll 

et al. (2003, pp. 540–541; 2006, p. 27) 

and our observations during the past 20 

years (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93; Service 

et al. 2007, Figures 1–4, Table 4) 

indicate that non-forested rangeland and 

croplands associated with intensive 

agricultural use (prairie and high desert) 

preclude wolf pack establishment and 

persistence. This unsuitability is due to 

high rates of wolf mortality, high 

densities of livestock compared to wild 

ungulates, chronic conflict with 

livestock and pets, local cultural 

intolerance of large predators, and wolf 

behavioral characteristics that make 

them vulnerable to human-caused 

mortality in open landscapes (See 

Factor A). We looked at the distribution 

of large expanses of unsuitable habitat 

that would form a broad boundary 

separating the NRM DPS from both the 

southwestern and midwestern wolf 

populations and from the core of any 

other possible wolf population that 

might develop in the foreseeable future 

in the western U.S. 

We included the eastern parts of 

Washington and Oregon and a small 

portion of north central Utah within the 

NRM DPS, because—(1) These areas are 

within 97 to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) from 

the core wolf population and routinely 

used by dispersing wolves; (2) lone 

dispersing wolves have been 

documented in these areas more than 

once in recent times (Jimenez et al. in 

prep.); (3) these areas contain some 

suitable habitat (see Factor A); and (4) 

the potential for connectivity exists 

between the relatively small and 

fragmented patches of suitable habitat in 

these areas with larger blocks of suitable 

habitat in the NRM DPS. If wolf 

breeding pairs establish in these areas, 

habitat suitability models suggest these 

nearby areas would likely be more 

connected to the core recovery areas in 

central Idaho and northwestern 

Wyoming than to any future wolf 

populations that might become 

established in other large blocks of 

potentially suitable habitat farther 

beyond the NRM DPS border. As noted 

earlier, large swaths of unsuitable 

habitat would isolate any wolf breeding 

pairs within the NRM DPS from other 

large patches of suitable habitat to the 

west or south (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 

541). 

Although we have received reports of 

individual wolves and wolf packs in the 

North Cascades of Washington (Almack 

and Fitkin 1998, pp. 7–13), agency 

efforts to confirm them were 

unsuccessful and to date no individual 

wolves or packs have been confirmed 

there (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1096; 

Jimenez et al. in prep.). Intervening 

unsuitable habitat makes it highly 

unlikely that wolves from the NRM DPS 

have dispersed to the North Cascades in 

recent history. However, if wolves 

dispersed into this area, they would 

remain protected by the Act as 

endangered because it is outside of the 

NRM DPS. 

We include all of Wyoming, Montana, 

and Idaho in the NRM DPS because (1) 

their State regulatory frameworks apply 

Statewide; and (2) expanding the DPS 

beyond a 300 km (190 mi) band of likely 

dispersal distances to include extreme 

eastern Montana and Wyoming adds 

only unsuitable habitat and does not 

affect the distinctness of the NRM DPS. 

Although including all of Wyoming in 

the NRM DPS results in including 

portions of the Sierra Madre, the Snowy, 

and the Laramie Ranges, we do not 

consider these areas to be suitable wolf 

habitat because of their size, shape, and 

distance from a strong source of 

dispersing wolves. Oakleaf et al. (2006, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10519 

pp. 558–559) chose not to analyze these 

areas of southeast Wyoming because 

they are fairly intensively used by 

livestock and are surrounded with, and 

interspersed by, private land, making 

pack establishment and persistence 

unlikely. While Carroll et al. (2003, p. 

541; 2006, p. 32) optimistically 

predicted these areas were suitable 

habitat, the model predicted that under 

current conditions these areas were 

largely sink habitat and that by 2025 

(within the foreseeable future) they were 

likely to be ranked as low occupancy 

because of human population growth 

and road development. 

We chose not to extend the NRM DPS 

border east beyond Montana and 

Wyoming, because those adjacent 

portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, 

and Nebraska are far outside the 

predicted routine dispersal range of gray 

wolves from the NRM. In addition, the 

available information on potentially 

suitable habitat indicates that Colorado 

and additional areas of Utah to the 

south and west of the NRM DPS include 

large areas of potentially suitable but 

unoccupied habitat (Carroll et al. 2003, 

p. 541). The current distribution of wolf 

packs in the NRM wolf population 

encompasses most of the suitable 

habitat, that area is surrounded by 

unsuitable habitat, and the nearest other 

blocks of suitable habitat are far beyond 

the expected dispersal distance of 

wolves that might form new breeding 

pairs. Therefore, we concluded that a 

smaller NRM DPS that contains the core 

recovery areas and the adjacent areas of 

largely unsuitable habitat where routine 

wolf dispersal could be expected, but 

that excludes contiguous blocks of 

potentially suitable habitat to the west 

and south that are outside the routine 

wolf dispersal area is representative of 

the current and future status of the 

existing NRM wolf population and 

consistent with our DPS policy. 

Analysis for Discreteness 

Under the DPS policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate taxon may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following conditions—(1) Is 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors 

(quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation); or 

(2) is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

Markedly Separated from Other 

Populations of the Taxon—The eastern 

edge of the NRM DPS (Figure 1) is about 

644 km (400 mi) from the western edge 

of the WGL DPS core wolf population 

(eastern Minnesota) and is separated 

from it by hundreds of miles of 

unsuitable habitat (see Factor A). The 

southern edge of the NRM DPS border 

is about 724 km (450 mi) from the 

nonessential experimental populations 

of wolves in the southwestern U.S. with 

vast amounts of unoccupied marginal or 

unsuitable habitat separating them. No 

wild wolves have been confirmed west 

of the NRM DPS boundary (although 

occasionally we get unconfirmed reports 

and 2 wolves were killed close to that 

boundary). While one dispersing wolf 

was confirmed east and one south of the 

NRM DPS boundary, no wolf packs have 

ever been found there. No wolves from 

other U.S. wolf populations are known 

to have dispersed as far as the NRM 

DPS. 

Although wolves can disperse over 

1,092 km (680 mi) (with actual travel 

distances exceeding 10,000 km (6,000 

mi)) (Fritts 1983, pp. 166–167; Ream et 

al. 1991, pp. 351–352; Boyd and 

Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Missouri 

Department of Conservation 2001, pp. 

1–2; Jimenez et al. in prep.; Wabakken 

et al. 2007, p. 1631), the average 

dispersal of NRM wolves is about 97 km 

(60 mi) (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 

1100; Jimenez et al. in prep.; Thiessen 

2007, p. 72). Only 10 of over 200 

confirmed NRM wolf dispersal events 

from 1992 through 2005 have been over 

300 km (190 mi) and outside the core 

recovery areas (Boyd and Pletscher. 

1999, p. 1094; Jimenez et al. in prep.). 

Undoubtedly many other dispersal 

events have occurred but not been 

detected because only 30 percent of the 

NRM wolf population has been radiocollared. All but two of these known 

U.S. long-distance dispersers remained 

within the NRM DPS. None of them 

found mates or survived long enough to 

form packs or breed in the U.S. (Jimenez 

et al. in prep.). 

The first wolf confirmed to have 

dispersed (within the U.S.) beyond the 

border of the NRM DPS was killed by 

a vehicle collision along Interstate 70 in 

north-central Colorado in spring 2004. 

Video footage of a black wolf-like canid 

taken near Walden in northern Colorado 

in early 2006, suggests another 

dispersing wolf may have traveled into 

Colorado. The subsequent status or 

location of that animal is unknown. 

Finally, in spring 2006, the carcass of a 

male black wolf was found along 

Interstate 90 in western South Dakota. 

Genetic testing confirmed it was a wolf 

that had dispersed from the GYA. We 

expect that occasional lone wolves will 

continue to disperse between and 

beyond the core recovery areas in 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well 

as into States adjacent to the NRM DPS. 

However, pack development and 

persistence outside the NRM DPS is 

unlikely because wolves that disperse as 

individuals typically have low survival 

(Pletscher et al. 1997, p. 459) and 

suitable habitat is limited and distant 

(Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541) from the 

NRM DPS. 

No connectivity currently exists 

between the NRM, WGL, and 

Southwestern gray wolf populations, 

nor are there any resident wolf packs in 

intervening areas. While it is 

theoretically possible that a lone wolf 

might traverse over 644 km (400 mi) 

from one population to the other, 

movement between these populations 

has never been documented and is 

extremely unlikely because of both the 

distance and the large areas of 

unsuitable habitat between the 

populations. Furthermore, the DPS 

policy does not require complete 

separation of one DPS from other 

populations, but instead requires some 

‘‘marked separation.’’ Thus, if 

occasional individual wolves or packs 

disperse among populations, the NRM 

DPS could still display the required 

discreteness. Based on the information 

presented above, we have determined 

that NRM gray wolves are markedly 

separated from all other gray wolf 

populations in the U.S. 

Differences Among U.S. and 

Canadian Wolf Populations—The DPS 

policy allows us to use international 

borders to delineate the boundaries of a 

DPS if there are differences in control of 

exploitation, conservation status, or 

regulatory mechanisms between the 

countries. Significant differences exist 

in management between U.S. and 

Canadian wolf populations. About 

52,000 to 60,000 wolves occur in 

Canada, where suitable habitat is 

abundant (Boitani 2003, p. 322). 

Because of this abundance, wolves in 

Canada are not protected by Federal 

laws and are only minimally protected 

in most Canadian provinces (Pletscher 

et al. 1991, p. 546). In the U.S., unlike 

Canada, Federal protection and 

intensive management has been 

necessary to recover the wolf (Carbyn 

1983). When delisted, States in the NRM 

DPS would carefully monitor and 

manage to retain populations above the 

recovery goal (see Factor D). Therefore, 

we will continue to use the U.S.-Canada 

border to mark the northern boundary of 

the NRM DPS due to the difference in 

control of exploitation, conservation 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10520 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

status, and regulatory mechanisms 

between the two countries. 

Analysis for Significance 

If we determine that a population 

segment is discrete, we next consider 

available scientific evidence of its 

significance to the taxon to which it 

belongs. Our DPS policy states that this 

consideration may include, but is not 

limited to, the following factors: (1) 

Persistence of the discrete population 

segment in an ecological setting unusual 

or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence 

that loss of the discrete population 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon; (3) 

evidence that the discrete population 

segment represents the only surviving 

natural occurrence of a taxon that may 

be more abundant elsewhere as an 

introduced population outside its 

historic range; and/or (4) evidence that 

the discrete population segment differs 

markedly from other populations of the 

species in its genetic characteristics. 

Below we address factors 1 and 2. 

Factors 3 and 4 do not apply to the NRM 

DPS and thus are not included in our 

analysis for significance. 

Unusual or Unique Ecological 

Setting—Within the range of holarctic 

wolves, the NRM has among the highest 

diversity of large predators and native 

ungulate prey species, resulting in 

complex ecological interaction between 

the ungulate prey, predator and 

scavenger groups, and vegetation (Smith 

et al. 2003, p. 331). In the NRM DPS, 

gray wolves share habitats with black 

bears (Ursus americanus), grizzly bears 

(U.arctos horribilis), cougars (Felis 

concolor), lynx (Lynx canadensis), 

wolverine (Gulo gulo), coyotes (Canis 

latrans), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), badgers 

(Taxidea taxus), bobcats (Felis rufus), 

fisher (Martes pennanti), and marten 

(Martes americana). The unique and 

diverse assemblage of native prey 

include elk (Cervus canadensis), mule 

deer (Odocoileus hemionus), whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 

moose (Alces alces), woodland caribou 

(Rangifer caribou), bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis), mountain goats (Oreamnos 

americanus), pronghorn antelope 

(Antilocapra americana), bison (Bison 

bison) (only in the GYA), and beaver 

(Castor canadensis). This complexity 

leads to unique dramatic and unique 

ecological cascades in pristine areas, 

such as in YNP. While these effects 

likely still occur at varying degrees 

elsewhere, they are increasingly 

modified and subtle the more an area is 

affected by humans (Smith et al. 2003, 

pp. 334–338; Robbins 2004, pp. 80–81; 

Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747–753; 

Hebblewhite et al. 2005, p. 2135; Garrott 

et al. 2005, p. 1245). For example, 

wolves appear to be changing elk 

behavior and elk relationships and 

competition with other native ungulates 

in YNP. These complex interactions 

may increase streamside willow 

production and survival (Ripple and 

Beschta 2004, p. 755), that in turn can 

affect beaver and nesting by riparian 

birds (Nievelt 2001, p. 1). This 

suspected pattern of wolf-caused 

changes also may be occurring with 

scavengers, whereby wolf predation is 

providing a year-round source of food 

for a diverse variety of carrion feeders 

(Wilmers et al. 2003, p. 996; Wilmers 

and Getz 2005, p. 571). The wolf 

population in the NRM has extended 

the southern range of the contiguous 

gray wolf population in western North 

America nearly 400 miles (640 km) into 

a much more diverse, ecologically 

complex, and unique assemblage of 

species than is found elsewhere within 

occupied wolf habitat in most of the 

northern hemisphere. 

Significant Gap in the Range of the 

Taxon—Wolves once lived throughout 

most of North America. Wolves have 

been extirpated from most of the 

southern portions of their historic North 

American range. The loss of the NRM 

wolf population would represent a 

significant gap in the species’ holarctic 

range in that this loss would create a 15- 

degree latitudinal or over 1,600-km 

(1,000-mi) gap across the Rocky 

Mountains between the Mexican wolf 

and wolves in Canada. If this potential 

gap were realized, substantial cascading 

ecological impacts, such as behavioral 

changes in elk that reduced browsing 

pressure and allowed increased willow 

growth in riparian areas that can then 

support beaver or nesting song birds, 

would occur in the NRM, most 

noticeably in the most pristine and 

wildest areas (Smith et al. 2003, pp. 

334–338; Robbins 2004, pp. 80–81; 

Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747–753; 

Hebblewhite and Smith in press, p. 1–

6). 

Given the wolf’s historic occupancy of 

the conterminous U.S. and the portion 

of the historic range the conterminous 

U.S. represents, recovery in the lower 48 

States has long been viewed as 

important to the taxon (39 FR 1171, 

January 4, 1974; 43 FR 9607, March 9, 

1978). The NRM DPS is significant in 

achieving this objective, as it is 1 of only 

3 populations of wolves in the lower 48 

States and currently constitutes nearly 

25 percent of all wolves in the lower 48 

States. 

We conclude, based on our analysis of 

the best available scientific information, 

that the NRM DPS is significant to the 

taxon in that NRM wolves exist in a 

unique ecological setting and their loss 

would represent a significant gap in the 

range of the taxon. Therefore, the NRM 

DPS meets the criterion of significance 

under our DPS policy. Because the NRM 

gray wolf population is both discrete 

and significant, it is a valid DPS. The 

conservation status of the DPS is 

discussed below (see Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species section). 

Recovery 

Recovery Planning and the Selection 

of Recovery Criteria—Shortly after 

listing we formed the interagency wolf 

recovery team to complete a recovery 

plan for the NRM population (Service 

1980, p. i; Fritts et al. 1995, p. 111). The 

NRM Wolf Recovery Plan (recovery 

plan) was approved in 1980 (Service 

1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 (Service 

1987, p. i). Recovery plans are not 

regulatory documents and are instead 

intended to provide guidance to the 

Service, States, and other partners on 

methods of minimizing threats to listed 

species and on criteria that may be used 

to determine when recovery is achieved. 

There are many paths to accomplishing 

recovery of a species and recovery may 

be achieved without all criteria being 

fully met. For example, one or more 

criteria may have been exceeded while 

other criteria may not have been 

accomplished. In that instance, the 

Service may judge that the threats have 

been minimized sufficiently, and the 

species is robust enough to reclassify 

from endangered to threatened or to 

delist. In other cases, recovery 

opportunities may have been recognized 

that were not known at the time the 

recovery plan was finalized. These 

opportunities may be used instead of 

methods identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, information on the species 

may be learned that was not known at 

the time the recovery plan was 

finalized. The new information may 

change the extent that criteria need to be 

met for recognizing recovery of the 

species. Recovery of a species is a 

dynamic process requiring adaptive 

management that may, or may not, fully 

follow the guidance provided in a 

recovery plan. 

The 1980 recovery plan’s objective 

was to re-establish and maintain viable 

populations of the NRM wolf (Canis 

lupus irremotus) in its former range 

where feasible (Service 1980, p. iii). The 

revised recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 

57) specifies a recovery criterion of a 

minimum of 10 breeding pairs of wolves 

(defined as 2 wolves of opposite sex and 

adequate age, capable of producing 

offspring) for a minimum of 3 

successive years in each of 3 core 

recovery areas—(1) Northwestern 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10521 

Montana (Glacier National Park; the 

Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Lincoln 

Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and 

adjacent public and private lands), (2) 

central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel 

Hump, Frank Church River of No 

Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; 

and adjacent, mostly Federal, lands), 

and (3) the YNP area (including the 

Absaroka-Beartooth, North Absaroka, 

Washakie, and Teton Wilderness Areas; 

and adjacent public and private lands). 

That plan recommended that wolf 

establishment not be promoted outside 

these distinct recovery areas, but that 

connectivity between them be 

encouraged. However, no attempts were 

made to prevent wolf pack 

establishment outside of the recovery 

areas unless chronic conflict required 

resolution (Service 1994, p. 1–15, 16; 

Service 1999; p. 2). The recovery plan 

states that if 2 recovery areas maintain 

a minimum of 10 breeding pairs for 3 

successive years, the gray wolves in the 

NRM can be reclassified to threatened 

status, and if all 3 recovery areas 

maintain a minimum of 10 breeding 

pairs for 3 successive years, then the 

NRM wolf population can be considered 

fully recovered and can be considered 

for delisting. 

The 1994 environmental impact 

statement (EIS) on wolf reintroduction 

reviewed wolf recovery in the NRM and 

the adequacy of the recovery goals 

because we were concerned that the 

1987 goals might be insufficient (Service 

1994, pp. 6:68–78). The Service 

conducted a thorough literature review 

of wolf population viability analysis and 

minimum viable populations, reviewed 

the recovery goals for other wolf 

populations, surveyed the opinions of 

43 wolf experts, of which 25 responded, 

and incorporated our own expertise into 

a review of the NRM wolf recovery goal. 

We published our analysis in the 

Service’s EIS and in a peer-reviewed 

paper (Service 1994, Appendix 8 & 9; 

Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26–38). Our 

analysis concluded that the 1987 

recovery goal was, at best, a minimum 

recovery goal, and that modifications 

were warranted on the basis of more 

recent information about wolf 

distribution, connectivity, and numbers. 

We agree with Fritts and Carbyn (1995, 

p. 26) that ‘‘Data on survival of actual 

wolf populations suggest greater 

resiliency than indicated by theory’’ and 

theoretical treatments of population 

viability ‘‘have created unnecessary 

dilemmas for wolf recovery programs by 

overstating the required population 

size’’. Based on our analysis and peer 

review comments, we concluded that 

‘‘Thirty or more breeding pairs 

comprising some 300+ wolves in a 

metapopulation (a population that exists 

as partially isolated sets of 

subpopulations) with genetic exchange 

between subpopulations should have a 

high probability of long-term 

persistence’’ because such a population 

would contain enough individuals in 

successfully reproducing packs 

distributed over distinct but somewhat 

connected large areas to be viable for the 

long term (Service 1994, pp. 6:75). A 

population at or above this size would 

contain at least 30 successfully 

reproducing packs and ample 

individuals to ensure long-term 

population viability. In addition the 

metapopulation configuration and 

distribution throughout secure suitable 

habitat would ensure that each core 

recovery area would provide a 

recovered population that would be 

distributed over a large enough area to 

provide resilience to natural or mancaused events that may temporarily 

affect one core recovery area. No wolf 

population of this size and distribution 

has gone extinct in recent history unless 

it was deliberately eradicated by 

humans (Boitani 2003, 321–331). We 

further determined that a 

metapopulation of this size and 

distribution among the three core 

recovery areas within the area we now 

identify as the NRM DPS would result 

in a wolf population that would fully 

achieve our recovery objectives. 

We conducted another review of what 

constitutes a recovered wolf population 

in late 2001 and early 2002 to reevaluate 

and update our 1994 analysis and 

conclusions (Service 1994, Appendix 9). 

We surveyed 86 biologists, of which 50 

responded, with expertise in wolves and 

population viability from North 

America and Europe for their 

professional opinions regarding a wide 

range of issues related to the NRM 

recovery goal. We also reviewed a wide 

range of literature, including wolf 

population viability analysis from other 

areas (Bangs 2002, p. 1–9). Despite 

varied professional opinions and a great 

diversity of suggestions, experts 

overwhelmingly thought the recovery 

goal derived in our 1994 analysis was 

more biologically appropriate than the 

1987 recovery plan’s criteria for 

recovery and represented a viable and 

recovered wolf population. Reviewers 

also thought connectivity (either natural 

or human-facilitated) was important to 

maintaining the metapopulation 

configuration and wolf population 

viability. Reviewers also recommended 

other concepts/numbers for recovery 

goals but most were slight modifications 

to those we recommended in our 1994 

analysis. While experts strongly (78%) 

supported our 1994 conclusions that a 

metapopulation of at least 30 breeding 

pairs and at least 300 wolves would 

provide for a viable wolf population, 

they also concluded that wolf 

population viability was enhanced by 

higher (500 or more wolves) rather than 

lower population levels (300) and longer 

(more than 3 years) rather than shorter 

(3 years) demonstrated time frames. The 

more numerous and widely distributed 

a species is, the higher its probability of 

population viability will be. However, 

the Act requires us to ensure a species 

is no longer threatened or endangered 

not that its viability would be 

theoretically maximized. A wolf 

metapopulation of at least 30 breeding 

pairs and at least 300 wolves ensures it 

will remain viable and recovered. A 

slight majority indicated that the 1987 

recovery goal, of only 10 breeding pairs 

(defined as a male and female capable 

of breeding) in each of three distinct 

recovery areas, may be viable, given the 

persistence of other small wolf 

populations in other parts of the world. 

The results of previous population 

viability analysis for other wolf 

populations varied widely, and similar 

to our 1994 analysis, reviewers 

concluded that theoretical results were 

strongly dependent on the variables and 

assumptions used in such models and 

conclusions often predicted different 

outcomes than actual empirical data had 

conclusively demonstrated. Based on 

that review, we reaffirmed our more 

relevant and stringent 1994 definition of 

wolf breeding pairs, population 

viability, and recovery (Service 1994, p. 

6:75). 

We measure the wolf recovery goal by 

the number of breeding pairs because 

wolf populations are maintained by 

packs that successfully raise pups. We 

use ‘‘breeding pairs’’ to describe 

successfully reproducing packs (Service 

1994, pp. 6:67; Bangs 2002, p. 7–8; 

Mitchell et al. in press). Breeding pairs 

are only measured in winter because 

most wolf mortality occurs in spring/ 

summer/fall and winter is the beginning 

of the annual courtship and breeding 

season for wolves. Often we do not 

know if the specific pack actually 

contains an adult male, adult female, 

and two pups in winter; however, pack 

size has proven to have a strong 

correlation with breeding pair status 

and by simply knowing the size of wolf 

packs in mid-winter we can reliably 

estimate the number of breeding pairs 

(Ausband 2006; Mitchell et al. in press). 

In the future, the States will be able to 

use pack size in winter as a surrogate to 

reliably identify each pack’s 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10522 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

contribution toward meeting our 

breeding pair recovery criteria and to 

better predict the effect of managing for 

certain pack sizes on wolf population 

recovery. 

We have also determined that an 

essential part of achieving recovery is an 

equitable distribution of wolf breeding 

pairs and individual wolves among the 

three States and the three core recovery 

areas. A wolf metapopulation that is 

equitably distributed among the three 

core recovery areas provides each area 

with enough successfully reproducing 

packs and individuals to withstand any 

threats to it and to allow for local 

adaptation to the ecological conditions 

within each area (e.g., bison in the GYA, 

white-tailed deer in northwestern 

Montana, or steep terrain of central 

Idaho). In addition, a minimum number 

of successfully reproducing packs and 

individual wolves in each core recovery 

area ensures a consistent strong source 

of dispersing individuals between and 

among the three recovery areas to 

consistently occupy suitable habitat, 

form new or join existing packs, and 

provide the opportunity for genetic and 

demographic mixing within the 

population to maintain its viability and 

resilience. Like peer reviewers in 1994 

and 2002, we concluded that NRM wolf 

recovery and long-term wolf population 

viability is dependent on its distribution 

as well as maintaining the minimum 

numbers of breeding pairs and wolves. 

While uniform distribution is not 

necessary, a well-distributed population 

with no one State/recovery area 

maintaining a disproportionately low 

number of packs or number of 

individual wolves is needed to maintain 

wolf distribution in and adjacent to core 

recovery areas and other suitable habitat 

throughout the NRM. 

Following the 2002 review, we began 

to use States, in addition to recovery 

areas, to measure progress toward 

recovery goals (Service et al. 2003–2007, 

Table 4). Because Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming each contain the vast majority 

of one of the original three core recovery 

areas, we determined the 

metapopulation structure would be 

conserved by equally dividing the 

overall recovery goal between the three 

States. This approach made each State’s 

responsibility for wolf conservation fair, 

consistent, and clear. It avoided any 

possible confusion that one State might 

assume all of the responsibility for 

maintaining the required number of 

wolves and wolf breeding pairs in a 

shared core recovery area. State 

regulatory authorities and traditional 

management of resident game 

populations occur on a State-by-State 

basis. Management by State would still 

maintain a robust wolf population in 

each core recovery area because they 

each contain manmade or natural 

refugia from high levels of humancaused mortality (e.g., National Parks, 

wilderness areas, and remote Federal 

lands) that guarantee those areas remain 

the stronghold for wolf breeding pairs 

and source of dispersing wolves in each 

State. 

Recovery targets by State promote 

connectivity and genetic exchange 

between the metapopulation segments 

by avoiding management that focuses 

solely on wolf breeding pairs in 

relatively distinct core recovery areas 

and promote a minimum level of 

potential natural dispersal to and from 

each population segment. This approach 

also will increase the numbers of 

potential wolf breeding pairs in the 

GYA because it is shared by all three 

States. Wyoming alone has committed 

to maintain at least 15 breeding pairs 

(with at least 7 of those breeding pairs 

outside the National Parks) and 150 

wolves, so wolves in the Montana and 

Idaho portion of the GYA would be in 

addition to those required to exceed 

minimal recovery area levels. A large 

and well-distributed population within 

the GYA is especially important because 

it is the most isolated core recovery area 

within the NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al. 

2006, p. 554; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 

19). 

The numerical component of the 

recovery goal represents the minimum 

number of breeding pairs and wolves 

needed to achieve recovery. To ensure 

that the NRM wolf population continues 

to exceed the recovery goal of 30 

breeding pairs and 300 wolves, Montana 

(2003), Idaho (2002; 2007), and 

Wyoming (2007) have committed to 

manage for at least 15 breeding pairs 

and at least 150 wolves per State in midwinter and maintain its metapopulation 

structure. Because the recovery goal 

components are measured in mid-winter 

when the wolf population is near its 

annual low point, the average annual 

wolf population will be much higher 

than these minimal goals. At this point 

in time, it is unknown how many 

wolves and breeding pairs will 

ultimately result from implementation 

of the State management plans except 

that each State plan’s management 

objectives assure that the NRM DPS will 

certainly be well over a combined total 

of 45 breeding pairs and 450 wolves. 

Each State has committed to manage for 

at least 150 wolves and 15 breeding 

pairs by regulating human-caused 

mortality. If each of the States managed 

to have only 15 breeding pairs and 150 

wolves (which is extremely unlikely 

since each would have to be at their 

lowest allowable level at the same time 

and wolves will still also be present in 

National Parks, wilderness areas, and 

remote public lands where sharp 

reductions in wolf numbers are 

unlikely), then 45 breeding pairs would 

likely result in more than 450 wolves. 

Service data since 1986 indicate that, 

within the NRM DPS, each breeding 

pair has corresponded to 14 wolves in 

mid-winter (Service et al. 2007, Table 

4). 

These goals were designed to provide 

the NRM gray wolf population with 

sufficient representation, resilience, and 

redundancy for its long-term 

conservation (See Summary of Threats 

Analysis section for details). We have 

expended considerable effort to 

develop, repeatedly re-evaluate, and 

when necessary modify, the recovery 

goals (Service 1987, p. 12; Service 1994, 

Appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and Carbyn 

1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1). After 

evaluating all available information, we 

conclude the best scientific and 

commercial data available continues to 

support the ability of these recovery 

goals to ensure the population does not 

again become in danger of extinction. 

Monitoring and Managing Recovery—

In 1989, we formed an Interagency Wolf 

Working Group (Working Group) 

composed of Federal, State, and Tribal 

agency personnel (Bangs 1991, p. 7; 

Fritts et al. 1995, p. 109; Service et al. 

1989–2007, p. 1). The Working Group 

conducted four basic recovery tasks 

(Service et al. 1989–2007, p. 1–2), in 

addition to the standard enforcement 

functions associated with the take of a 

listed species. These tasks were: (1) 

Monitor wolf distribution and numbers; 

(2) control wolves that attacked 

livestock by moving them, conducting 

other non-lethal measures, or killing 

them (Bangs et al. 2006, p. 7); (3) 

conduct research and publish scientific 

publications on wolf relationships to 

ungulate prey, other carnivores and 

scavengers, livestock, and people; and 

(4) provide accurate science-based 

information to the public and mass 

media so that people could develop 

their opinions about wolves and wolf 

management from an informed 

perspective. 

The size and distribution of the NRM 

wolf population is estimated by the 

Working Group each year and, along 

with other information, is published in 

an interagency annual report (Service et 

al. 1989–2007, Table 4, Figure 1). Since 

the early 1980s, the Service and our 

cooperating partners have radio-collared 

and monitored over 940 wolves in the 

NRM to assess population status, 

conduct research, and to reduce/resolve 

conflict with livestock. The Working 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10523 

Group’s annual population estimates 

represent the best scientific and 

commercial data available regarding 

year-end NRM gray wolf population size 

and trends, as well as distributional and 

other information. 

Recovery by State—At the end of 

2000, the NRM population first met its 

overall numerical and distributional 

recovery goal of a minimum of 30 

breeding pairs and over 300 wolves 

well-distributed among Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming (Service et al. 2001, Table 

4; 68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003). This 

minimum recovery goal was exceeded 

every year since 2000 (Service et al. 

2002–2007, Table 4; Service 2007a). 

Because the recovery goal must be 

achieved for 3 consecutive years, the 

temporal element of recovery was not 

achieved until the end of 2002 when 

663 wolves and 49 breeding pairs were 

present (Service et al. 2003, Table 4). At 

the end of 2007, the NRM wolf 

population achieved its numerical and 

distributional recovery goal for 8 

consecutive years (68 FR 15804, April 1, 

2003; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006; 

Service et al. 2001–2007, Table 4; 

Service 2007a). 

For the State-by-State recovery goals, 

Idaho and Wyoming first achieved the 

minimum recovery goal of 10 breeding 

pairs and 100 wolves in 2000, and 

Montana first achieved them in 2002. 

All three States have met or exceeded 

this goal every year since it was first 

achieved. In late 2007, preliminary 

estimates indicate there are 394 wolves 

in 37 breeding pairs in Montana, 788 

wolves in 41 breeding pairs in Idaho, 

and 362 wolves in 27 breeding pairs in 

Wyoming for about 1,545 wolves in 105 

potential breeding pairs in the NRM 

wolf population (Service 2007a). The 

NRM wolf population increased about 

24 percent annually from 1995 to 2006 

(Service et al. 2007, Table 4). Figure 2 

illustrates wolf population trends by 

State from 1979 to 2006. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10524 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

As discussed previously, after the 

2002 peer review of the wolf recovery 

efforts, we began using States, in 

addition to recovery areas, to measure 

progress toward recovery goals (Service 

et al. 2003–2007, Table 4). However, 

because the original recovery plan 

included goals for core recovery areas 

we have included the following 

discussion on the history of the recovery 

efforts and status of these core recovery 

areas, including how the wolf 

population’s distribution and 

metapopulation structure is important 

to maintaining its viability and how the 

biological characteristics of each core 

recovery area differ (Service et al. 2007, 

Table 4). 

Recovery in the Northwestern 

Montana Recovery Area— The 

Northwestern Montana Recovery Area’s 

84,800 km2 (33,386 mi2) includes: 

Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, 

Bob Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat 

Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public 

and private lands in northern Montana 

and the northern Idaho panhandle. 

Wolves there are listed as endangered. 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2ER27FE08.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10525 

Reproduction first occurred in 

northwestern Montana in 1986 (Ream et 

al. 1989). The natural ability of wolves 

to find and quickly recolonize empty 

habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 17–

19), the interim control plan (Service 

1988, 1999), and the interagency 

recovery program combined to 

effectively promote an increase in wolf 

numbers (Bangs 1991, p.7–13). By 1996, 

the number of wolves had grown to 

about 70 wolves in 7 known breeding 

pairs. However, since 1997, the 

estimated number of breeding pairs and 

wolves has fluctuated, partly due to 

actual population size and partly due to 

monitoring effort. It varied from 4 to 12 

breeding pairs and from 49 to 171 

wolves (Service et al. 2007, Table 4) but 

generally increased. In 2007, we 

estimated 214 wolves in 24 breeding 

pairs in the northwestern Montana 

recovery area (Service 2007a). 

The Northwestern Montana Recovery 

Area has sustained fewer wolves than 

the other recovery areas because there is 

less suitable habitat and it is more 

fragmented (Oakleaf et al. 2006. p. 560). 

Some of the variation in our wolf 

population estimates for northwestern 

Montana is due to the difficulty of 

counting wolves in the areas’ thick 

forests. Wolves in northwestern 

Montana also prey mainly on whitetailed deer, resulting in smaller packs 

and territories, which makes packs more 

difficult to detect (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 

878). Increased monitoring efforts in 

northwestern Montana by Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) since 

2005 were likely responsible for some of 

the higher population estimates. Wolf 

numbers in 2003 and 2004 also likely 

exceeded 10 breeding pairs and 100 

wolves but were not documented 

simply due to less intensive monitoring 

those years (Service et al. 2007, Table 4; 

Service 2007a). Wolf numbers in 

northwestern Montana have exceeded 

100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs for at 

least the past 3 years, and probably the 

last 6 years (Service et al. 2007, Table 

4). 

Routine dispersal of wolves has been 

documented among northwestern 

Montana, central Idaho, and adjacent 

Canadian populations, demonstrating 

that northwestern Montana’s wolves are 

demographically and genetically linked 

to both the wolf population in Canada 

and in central Idaho (Pletscher et al. 

1991, pp. 547–8; Boyd and Pletscher 

1999, pp. 1105–1106; Sime 2007, p. 4; 

Jimenez et al. in prep.). Because of fairly 

contiguous but fractured suitable 

habitat, wolves dispersing into 

northwestern Montana from both 

directions will continue to join or form 

new packs and supplement this portion 

of the overall NRM wolf population 

(Boyd et al. 1995, p. 140; Forbes and 

Boyd 1996, p. 1082; Forbes and Boyd 

1997, p. 1226; Jimenez et al. in prep; 

vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19; Thiessen 

2007, p. 50; Sime 2007, p. 4). 

Unlike YNP or the central Idaho 

Wilderness complex, northwestern 

Montana lacks a large core refugium that 

contains large numbers of overwintering 

wild ungulates and few livestock. 

Therefore, wolf numbers may not ever 

be as high in northwestern Montana as 

they are in the Central Idaho or GYA 

core recovery areas. However, this 

portion of the NRM DPS has persisted 

for nearly 20 years, is robust today, and 

habitat there is capable of supporting 

200 wolves (Service et al. 2007, Table 

4). State management, pursuant to the 

Montana State wolf management plan 

(2003), will ensure this portion of the 

NRM DPS continues to thrive (see 

Factor D). 

Recovery in the Central Idaho 

Recovery Area—The Central Idaho 

Recovery Area’s 53,600 km2 (20,700 

mi2) includes: The Selway Bitterroot, 

Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of 

No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness 

Areas; adjacent, mostly Federal lands, in 

central Idaho; and adjacent parts of 

southwest Montana (Service 1994, p. 

iv). In January 1995, 15 young adult 

wolves from Alberta, Canada were 

released in central Idaho (Bangs and 

Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts et al. 1997, p. 

7). In January 1996, an additional 20 

wolves from British Columbia were 

released (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 787). 

Central Idaho contains the greatest 

amount of highly suitable wolf habitat 

compared to either northwestern 

Montana or the GYA (Oakleaf et al. 

2006, p. 559). Consequently, the central 

Idaho area population has grown 

continuously and expanded its range 

since reintroduction. As in the 

Northwestern Montana Recovery Area, 

some of the Central Idaho Recovery 

Area’s increase in its wolf population 

estimate was due to an increased 

monitoring effort by Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game (IDFG). By 2007, we 

estimated 885 wolves in 48 potential 

breeding pairs in the central Idaho 

recovery area (Service 2007a). This 

marks ten successive years (1998–2007) 

that this recovery area contained at least 

10 breeding pair and 100 wolves 

(Service et al. 2007; Service 2007a). 

Recovery in the GYA—The GYA 

Recovery Area (63,700 km2 [24,600 

mi2]) includes: YNP; the Absaroka 

Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, 

and Teton Wilderness Areas (the 

National Park/Wilderness units); 

adjacent public and private lands in 

Wyoming; and adjacent parts of Idaho 

and Montana (Service 1994, p. iv). The 

wilderness portions of the GYA are only 

seasonally used by wolves due to high 

elevation, deep snow, and low 

productivity in terms of sustaining yearround wild ungulate populations 

(Service et al. 2007, Figure 3). In 1995, 

14 wolves representing 3 family groups 

from Alberta were released in YNP 

(Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts et 

al. 1997, p. 7; Phillips and Smith 1996, 

pp. 33–43). In 1996, this procedure was 

repeated with 17 wolves representing 4 

family groups from British Columbia. 

Finally, 10 five-month-old pups 

removed from northwestern Montana 

were released in YNP in the spring of 

1997 (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 787). Only 2 

survived past 9 months but both became 

breeding adults. By 2007, we estimated 

455 wolves in 34 potential breeding 

pairs in the GYA (Service 2007a). This 

marks eight successive years (2000–

2007) that this recovery area contained 

at least 10 breeding pair and 100 wolves 

(Service et al. 2007; Service 2007a). 

Wolf numbers in the GYA were stable 

in 2005, but known breeding pairs 

dropped by 30 percent to only 20 pairs 

(Service et al. 2006, Table 4). The 

population recovered in 2006, primarily 

because numbers outside YNP in 

Wyoming grew to about 174 wolves in 

15 breeding pairs (Service et al. 2007). 

Most of this decline occurred in YNP 

(which declined from 171 wolves in 16 

known breeding pairs in 2004 to 118 

wolves in 7 breeding pairs in 2005 

(Service et al. 2005, 2006, Tables 1–4) 

and likely occurred because: (1) Highly 

suitable habitat in YNP was saturated 

with wolf packs; (2) conflict among 

packs appeared to limit population 

density; (3) fewer elk occur in YNP than 

when reintroduction took place 

(Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 259; White and 

Garrott 2006, p. 942); and (4) a 

suspected 2005 outbreak of disease 

(canine parvovirus (CPV) or canine 

distemper (CD)) reduced that years’’ pup 

survival to 20 percent (Service et al. 

2006, Table 2; Smith et al. 2006, p. 244; 

Smith and Almberg 2007, pp. 17–20). 

By 2007, the YNP wolf population had 

rebounded and was estimated to contain 

186 wolves in 12 breeding pairs (Service 

2007a). Additional significant growth in 

the National Park/Wilderness portions 

of the Wyoming wolf population is 

unlikely because suitable wolf habitat is 

saturated with resident wolf packs. 

Maintaining wolf populations above 

recovery levels in the GYA of the NRM 

DPS will depend on wolf packs living 

outside the National Park/Wilderness 

portions of northwestern Wyoming and 

southwestern Montana. 

For further information on the history 

of NRM wolf recovery, recovery 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10526 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

planning (including defining 

appropriate recovery criteria), 

population monitoring (through the end 

of 2007), and cooperation and 

coordination with our partners in 

achieving recovery, see the ‘‘Recovery’’

section of the August 1, 2006, 12-month 

status review (71 FR 43411–43413), 

Service weekly wolf reports (1995–

2007), and the Rocky Mountain Wolf 

Recovery Interagency Annual Reports 

(Service et al. 1989–2007) at http:// 

westerngraywolf.fws.gov. The NRM Wolf 

Interagency Annual Report for 2007 

(Service et al. 2008) should be available 

about the time this rule is published. 

Public Comments Solicited 

In accordance with our Interagency 

Policy for Peer Review in Endangered 

Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270, 

July 1, 1994) and the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review, we solicited independent 

review of the science in the proposed 

delisting rule from eight well-published 

North American scientists with 

extensive expertise in wolf biology. The 

purpose of this review was to ensure 

that our decision to establish and delist 

the NRM gray wolf DPS was based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

analyses, and conclusions. All eight 

peer reviewers submitted comments on 

the proposed delisting rule during the 

initial 90-day comment period (72 FR 

6106, February 8, 2007; 72 FR 14760, 

March 29, 2007). Five of those experts 

reviewed the proposal again after we 

reopened the comment period (73 FR 

36939, July 6, 2007) to allow 

consideration of Wyoming’s revised 

wolf management plan and its impact 

upon our proposal. 

Six of seven peer reviewers who 

specifically stated an opinion on the 

soundness of our overall initial delisting 

proposal confirmed that our approach 

was generally reasonable and sciencebased and that appropriate literature 

was cited. Five of the eight experts 

volunteered the opinion that the 

Service’s rejection of the Wyoming 2003 

wolf management framework appeared 

warranted. Two reviewers questioned 

whether delisting anywhere in the NRM 

DPS should proceed without an 

approved Wyoming wolf management 

plan. All of the experts who reviewed 

Wyoming’s revised plan and 

commented during the reopened 

comment period indicated delisting was 

appropriate. Generally, the reviewers 

agreed with our conclusion that the wolf 

population in the NRM DPS is 

biologically recovered and is no longer 

threatened as long as the States 

adequately regulate human-caused 

mortality. The reviewers provided many 

valuable thoughts, questions, and 

suggestions for improving the 

document. Issues identified by 

reviewers included: Suggestions to 

expand the discussion related to the 

recovery criteria (connectivity, 

foreseeable future, metapopulation, and 

breeding pairs); the adequacy of State 

wolf management plans and their future 

commitments; how the DPS border and 

criteria for suitable habitat were 

developed; not delisting northwestern 

Wyoming within the NRM DPS; and the 

effect of human-caused mortality on the 

wolf population. 

We considered their comments and 

recommendations as we made our final 

decision on the proposal. As a result of 

these comments, we incorporated many 

changes into the document. All other 

substantive peer reviewer comments are 

addressed under the appropriate Issue/ 

Response sections, which follow. 

Summary of Public Comments 

In our proposed rule, we requested 

that all interested parties submit 

information, data, comments, or 

suggestions (72 FR 6106, February 8, 

2007). The comment period was open 

from February 8, 2007, through May 9, 

2007 (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 72 

FR 14760, March 29, 2007). On July 6, 

2007, we reopened the comment period 

for an additional 30 days (73 FR 36939). 

During the comment periods, we held 

eight public hearings and eight open 

houses (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 

72 FR 14760, March 29, 2007; 73 FR 

36939, July 6, 2007). To further promote 

interest and awareness in the proposal, 

we also: conducted numerous press 

interviews; published legal notices in 

newspapers; and posted on our website, 

and otherwise made available, the 

proposal and numerous background 

documents. Comments could be hand 

delivered to us or submitted to us 

via e-mail, mail, the Federal eRulemaking Portal, fax, or public 

hearing testimony. Because the Federal 

Register notices listed one email 

address and the press releases listed 

another email address, we considered 

comments submitted to either email 

address. During the public comment 

process, we received 410 oral 

statements, 103 written testimony 

statements, over 283,000 emailed public 

comments, and 434 mailed and faxed 

comments. Comments were submitted 

by a wide array of parties, including the 

general public, environmental 

organizations, outdoor recreation, 

agricultural agencies and organizations, 

and Tribal, Federal, State, and local 

governments. 

We reviewed all comments from peer 

reviewers and the public for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the proposed rule. Substantive 

comments received during the comment 

period have been addressed below or 

incorporated directly into this final rule. 

Comments of a similar nature are 

grouped together under subject headings 

in a series of ‘‘Issues’’ and ‘‘Responses.’’

Technical and Editorial Comments 

Issue 1: Numerous technical and 

editorial comments and corrections 

were provided by respondents on nearly 

every part of the proposal. Several peer 

reviewers and others suggested or 

provided additional literature to 

consider in the final rule. 

Response 1: We corrected and 

updated numbers and other data 

wherever appropriate and possible. We 

edited the rule to make its purpose and 

rationale clearer. We shortened and 

condensed several sections by not 

repeating information that was already 

contained in the references cited. 

The literature used and recommended 

by the peer reviewers and others has 

been considered and incorporated, as 

appropriate, in this final rule. We also 

reviewed and added literature in 

development and in press to our 

reference list when it represents the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. The list of literature cited in 

this rule will be posted on our website. 

Compliance With Laws, Regulations, 

and Policy 

Issue 2: Numerous parties suggested 

that delisting the NRM DPS does not 

comply with our legal, regulatory, and 

policy responsibilities. 

Response 2: We have carefully 

reviewed the legal requirements of the 

Act, its implementing regulations, and 

relevant case law, all relevant Executive, 

Secretarial, and Director Orders, 

Departmental and Service policy, and 

other federal policies and procedures. 

We believe this rule and the process by 

which it was developed fully satisfies 

all of our legal, regulatory, and policy 

responsibilities. 

Issue 3: Some commenters suggested 

that a new NEPA analysis on the 1995 

reintroduction was needed because 

wolves have exceeded levels analyzed 

in the 1994 Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). Others suggested NEPA 

compliance on the delisting was needed 

for other reasons. 

Response 3: The 1994 EIS was limited 

to the NRM wolf reintroduction efforts 

and is not applicable to the delisting 

process. As noted in the proposed rule, 

NEPA compliance documents, such as 

environmental assessments or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10527 

environmental impact statements, need 

not be prepared in connection with 

actions adopted pursuant to section 4(a) 

of the Act (listings, delistings, and 

reclassifications). A notice outlining the 

Service’s reasons for this determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Issue 4: The Service has not 

adequately consulted with Native 

American Tribes, as required by 

Secretarial Order 3206. 

Response 4: The Service has engaged 

in a wide variety of efforts to consult 

with Native American Tribes. During 

the development of the proposal and 

this final rule, we endeavored to consult 

with Native American Tribes and Native 

American organizations to provide them 

with a complete understanding of the 

proposal and to enable us to gain an 

understanding of their concerns. We 

made additional efforts to contact and 

inform Tribes during the comment 

period, including providing the 

opportunity for informational meetings 

with Tribal representatives before the 

open houses and hearings on the 

delisting proposal. As we have become 

aware of Native American concerns, we 

have tried to address those concerns to 

the extent allowed by the Act, the 

Administrative Procedure Act, and 

other Federal statutes. We continue to 

work closely with and fund the Nez 

Perce Tribe and we assisted the Wind 

River Tribes in developing a Tribal Wolf 

Management Plan (Wind River Tribes 

2007) that we approved in June 2007. 

Recovery Goals, Recovery Criteria, and 

Delisting 

Issue 5: Some commenters suggested 

that we should not use numerical quotas 

in reclassification or delisting decisions 

for the gray wolf. Commenters offered a 

multitude of reasons why delisting is 

warranted/not warranted or premature/ 

overdue. 

Response 5: The Act specifies that 

objective and measurable criteria be 

developed for recovering listed species. 

For a detailed discussion of the NRM 

wolf recovery criteria see the Recovery 

section. This final delisting 

determination is based upon the 

species’ status relative to the Act’s 

definition of threatened or endangered 

and considers potential threats to the 

species as outlined in section 4(a)(1) of 

the Act. Population numbers and status 

provide useful information for assessing 

the species’ vulnerability to these 

factors. Therefore we believe that it is 

appropriate to use numerical 

information in our analysis if delisting 

is warranted. As described in detail in 

this rule, the species no longer meets 

the definition of threatened or 

endangered, thus, delisting is 

warranted. 

Issue 6: Some commenters requested 

that we further explain the recovery 

criteria. 

Response 6: The rule now provides a 

fuller explanation of the recovery goals 

(see the Recovery Planning and the 

Selection of Recovery Criteria section). 

Issue 7: Several commenters used the 

higher numbers of wolves required for 

recovery of wolves in the WGL DPS as 

evidence that the NRM wolf population 

is too low to delist. 

Response 7: The recovery goals for the 

WGL DPS and the NRM DPS differ 

because the biological circumstances 

(such as prey type and density, wolf 

density, habitat suitability, terrain, other 

ecological conditions, the history of 

recovery and planning efforts, and 

potential for human conflict) in each 

area differ. However, the standards for 

achieving recovery have the same 

biological foundation. Each set of 

recovery goals required a 

metapopulation structure, numerical 

and distribution delisting criteria to be 

exceeded for several years, State plans 

that would adequately regulate wolf 

mortality, and sufficient elimination or 

reduction of threats to the population. 

The standards for achieving recovery in 

the WGL DPS and NRM DPS are both 

scientifically valid and realistically 

reflect the biological similarities and 

differences between each area. 

Issue 8: Some suggested that the 1994 

recovery goal was inadequate to ensure 

the continued viability of the NRM DPS. 

Specifically, it was suggested that the 

1994 EIS could not properly evaluate 

the recovery goals because predicting 

the number of wolves the two thenunoccupied recovery zones might 

support was not possible in 1994. Some 

thought that the wolf recovery goals 

should be reevaluated given historic or 

recent wolf numbers and distribution 

throughout the NRM. Others suggested 

that additional protection of the 

ecosystem on which the NRM wolves 

depend would be necessary to 

accomplish successful recovery in areas 

of historic occupancy. Some questioned 

the objectivity of the peer review 

process for the recovery goals. Others 

suggested that the wolf population be 

reduced to the minimum recovery goal 

of 300 wolves in 30 breeding pairs. 

Response 8: We do not dispute the 

fact that the NRM can support a wolf 

population that is several times higher 

than the minimum numerical recovery 

goal. However, under the Act, species 

recovery is considered to be the return 

of a species to the point where it is no 

longer threatened or endangered. 

Recovery under the Act does not require 

restoring a species to historic levels or 

even maximizing possible levels of 

genetic diversity, density, or 

distribution. The Service has reviewed 

the NRM wolf recovery goal to ensure it 

is adequate (see discussion in Recovery 

section). We determined that a threeState wolf metapopulation that does not 

fall below 10 breeding pairs and 100 

wolves per State in mid-winter is 

biologically recovered. Montana, Idaho 

and Wyoming have committed to 

maintain the NRM wolf population 

above those minimum numerical and 

distributional levels. 

We used an extensive unbiased 

scientific peer review and public review 

process and our own expertise to help 

investigate, and modify as necessary, 

the recovery goals. We continue to 

believe these goals are adequate to 

ensure the species does not again 

become threatened or endangered. 

Additionally, peer reviews of the State 

wolf management plans and the 

rulemaking process also confirmed the 

adequacy of the recovery goals to 

maintain a recovered wolf population in 

the NRM. 

Regarding habitat, we believe the 

NRM DPS contains sufficient quality 

and quantity of habitat to maintain a 

healthy and viable wolf population in 

the long-term (as discussed in Factor A 

below). Thus, we do not believe there is 

a need for additional habitat protections 

in the NRM DPS. 

Finally, the Act does not require or 

authorize the Service to manage a listed 

species to keep it from surpassing 

minimum recovery goals. 

Future Wolf Numbers 

Issue 9: Many pointed out that the 

States will manage the NRM wolf 

population for fewer wolves than 

currently exist. Others recommended 

that we recognize that wolf numbers can 

fluctuate dramatically. 

Response 9: The delisted NRM DPS 

wolf population may be reduced from 

its current levels of around 1,500 wolves 

after delisting. However, the three States 

containing all habitat occupied by 

persistent wolf packs and most of the 

suitable habitat in the NRM DPS have 

each committed to manage for at least 

15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves so the 

population never goes below recovery 

levels. These States have indicated that 

they will likely manage the population 

at around 883–1,240 wolves in 69–96 

breeding pairs (see Recovery Planning 

and the Selection of Recovery Criteria 

section and Factor D.). We believe 

maintenance well above the minimum 

recovery goal is more than sufficient to 

maintain wolf recovery in the NRM. We 

and our State partners recognize that all 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10528 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

wildlife populations, including wolves, 

can fluctuate widely over a relatively 

short period of time. By managing for at 

least 50 percent above the minimal 

recovery levels, the States provide an 

adequate safety margin. This margin, 

combined with the States’ commitment 

to adaptively manage the species as 

needed, adequately addressed concerns 

about population fluctuations. 

Additional Recovery Efforts 

Issue 10: Some commenters suggested 

that the Service should initiate 

additional recovery programs in order to 

achieve gray wolf recovery before any 

delisting occurs. Others thought 

additional recovery efforts in these areas 

were unwise and unnecessary. The 

adjacent States of California, Nevada, 

Colorado, Utah, Oregon, and 

Washington were mentioned most 

frequently for additional recovery 

programs. 

Response 10: Possible future wolf 

recovery programs are beyond the scope 

of this rulemaking as such actions are 

not necessary to ensure the NRM DPS 

remains unlikely to become endangered 

in the foreseeable future throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. 

Issue 11: Several commenters thought 

that wolf recovery should require recolonization of all historical range or, at 

least, the portions of the historical range 

that could be made suitable. Some 

suggested that wolves should remain 

listed to promote wolf restoration 

within unoccupied portions of the 

species historic range, both in and 

beyond the NRM DPS. Others indicated 

that the conservation biology concepts 

of resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation need to be addressed 

over a much broader area. Some 

believed that our interpretation of 

recovery led us to focus on occupied 

habitat and controlling excessive rates 

of human-caused mortality rather than 

‘‘true recovery.’’ It was suggested that 

‘‘true recovery’’ requires natural 

connectivity or linkage, protection and 

enhancement of existing population 

levels, widespread habitat protection 

and restoration, and very protective 

regulatory mechanisms. 

Response 11: Many of these 

comments would expand the purpose of 

the Act and the meaning of ‘‘recover’’

under the Act. The purpose of the Act 

is to prevent species extinctions and 

provide for the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species. 

Conservation is defined as the use of all 

methods and procedures which are 

necessary to bring any endangered or 

threatened species to the point at which 

the measures provided pursuant to the 

Act are no longer necessary. According 

to our implementing regulations (50 

CFR 424.11), a species is recovered 

when the best scientific and commercial 

data available indicate that it no longer 

meets the definition of endangered or 

threatened under the Act. 

Restoration of historically occupied 

areas can play a role in achieving this 

goal. In the case of the NRM DPS, 

occupancy has been restored and will be 

sustained across a sufficiently large area 

to ensure the recovered status of the 

NRM DPS is never compromised. 

Occupancy across larger portions of the 

historical range, unless required to 

preclude the NRM DPS from again 

becoming threatened or endangered, are 

beyond the requirements of the Act. 

Resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (described in detail in 

the Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis 

section below) are important factors in 

the long-term conservation status of any 

species (Shaffer and Stein 2000). The 

principles of resiliency and redundancy 

are satisfied by the metapopulation 

structure of the NRM DPS, the numeric 

and distributional elements of the 

recovery goal, the core of highly 

protected public lands that provide 

secure habitat in each core recovery 

area, and the natural biological 

resiliency and adaptability of wolves. 

The concept of representation, when 

applied to the conservation of the gray 

wolf, indicates that we should preserve 

enough genetic diversity so that future 

genetic problems are unlikely to lead to 

extinction. These problems may include 

genetic drift (random fluctuations of 

gene frequencies in a population) and 

inbreeding depression (decreased vigor 

in terms of growth, survival, or 

fecundity), which would result in a 

diminished ability to survive or evolve 

as new environmental conditions 

develop. Within the NRM DPS, the 

current gray wolf recovery program 

preserves all of what remains of the 

species’ genetic diversity in that area 

(Leonard et al. 2005, p. 1) (See 

discussion of genetics in Factor E.). The 

three wolf populations in the lower 48 

States (WGL DPS, NRM DPS, and the 

wolf population in the southwest) 

contain all of the remaining genetic 

material of the gray wolf that formerly 

inhabited those areas. Additionally, the 

species remains abundant in many areas 

of the northern hemisphere. 

Collectively, this information shows 

that the conservation biology principle 

of representation is satisfied. 

We disagree with the assertion that 

we have inappropriately focused our 

recovery efforts on occupied habitat and 

mortality control. In fact, we have 

focused recovery efforts on wolf 

population levels, distribution, habitat, 

connectivity, all forms of mortality, 

wolf/human conflicts, diseases and 

parasites, predation, human attitudes, 

genetics, and dispersal (Service et al. 

2007). We have also worked to maintain 

public tolerance of wolves by limiting 

damage to private property. These 

recovery efforts led to significant 

increases in wolf numbers and range, 

allowing wolves to reoccupy habitats 

they were absent from since the 1930s. 

Our efforts also provided demographic, 

genetic, and habitat security. Wolves 

now occupy most of the suitable habitat 

within the NRM DPS. This 

comprehensive approach to recovery 

will be continued under State 

management in the future. Additional 

conservation actions that would result 

in a more widely distributed and 

numerically abundant wolf population 

in the NRM DPS are not necessary to 

meet the definition of recovered under 

the Act. 

Issue 12: Many suggested that we 

failed to recognize the ecological 

importance or trophic cascades (the 

ripple effect in predator, herbivore, 

plant, and scavenger communities 

caused by restoring a keystone species 

like wolves) and ecological effects 

emanating from wolf restoration in the 

NRM. Some suggested that the Act 

mandates that a species be ‘‘ecologically 

effective.’’ Still others thought we 

should use an ‘‘ecosystem approach’’

when implementing recovery. Finally, 

some suggested delisting does not fulfill 

parts of the Service mission which 

includes, ‘‘working with others, to 

conserve, protect and enhance fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats 

for the continuing benefit of the 

American people.’’

Response 12: We recognize that wolf 

recovery appears to have caused trophic 

cascades and ecological effects that 

affect numerous other animal and plant 

communities, and their relationships 

with each other. One example is 

changes in elk density and behavior that 

reduce browsing pressure in riparian 

areas that allow increased willow 

growth and survival, which then 

provides habitat for beaver, fish fry, and 

nesting song birds. These effects have 

been most pronounced when wolf 

populations are at natural carrying 

capacity, such as in YNP (Smith et al. 

2003, pp. 330–340; Robbins 2004, pp. 

76–85; Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 360–

363). While some believe we should 

stall delisting until these cascading 

ecological effects are restored 

throughout the NRM DPS or beyond, 

this approach is not supported by the 

Act. Instead, when a species no longer 

meets the definition of endangered or 

threatened under the Act, it is 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10529 

recovered, and should be delisted. 

Similarly, the Act does not require that 

we achieve or maintain ‘‘ecological 

effectiveness’’ (i.e., occupancy with 

densities that maintain critical 

ecosystem interactions and help ensure 

against ecosystem degradation) (Soule et 

al. 2003, p. 1239). 

Service policy intends that we apply 

an ecosystem approach in carrying out 

our programs for fish and wildlife 

conservation (National Policy Issuances 

95–03 and 96–10; 59 FR 34274, July 1, 

1994). The goal of such an approach is 

to strive to contribute to the effective 

conservation of natural biological 

diversity through perpetuation of 

dynamic, healthy ecosystems when 

carrying out our various mandates and 

functions. Preserving and recovering 

endangered and threatened species is 

one of the more basic aspects of an 

ecosystem approach to conservation. 

Successful recovery of a threatened or 

endangered species requires that the 

necessary components of its habitat and 

ecosystem be conserved, and that 

diverse partnerships be developed to 

ensure the long-term protection of those 

components. Thus, the recovery success 

demonstrated for gray wolves, a 

keystone or ‘‘highly interactive species’’

(as defined by Soule et al. 2003), 

incorporated an ecosystem approach. 

Finally, we believe the delisting 

portrays successful implementation of 

our mission statement. Gray wolf 

recovery programs involve many 

partners in the private and public 

sector, at all levels of government, and 

include numerous other State and 

Federal agencies. The gray wolf 

recovery successes described in this rule 

resulted from working with others to 

conserve, protect, and enhance gray 

wolf populations in the NRM DPS. That 

success has now reached a point where 

the NRM DPS is no longer threatened or 

endangered and thus no longer requires 

the protections of the Act. 

Issue 13: Some commenters suggested 

that we should delist gray wolves in 

areas outside the proposed DPS because: 

wolves are common elsewhere (in other 

areas of the lower 48 States or in Alaska 

and Canada); wolves have recovered (in 

that area or elsewhere); wolves are 

extirpated in many areas and could be 

delisted on the basis of extinction in 

those areas; keeping wolves listed where 

there is little or no suitable habitat 

results in irresolvable conflicts; and a 

State can manage a resident species 

better than the Federal government. 

Response 13: The Federal status of 

wolves under the Act outside of the 

NRM DPS is beyond the scope of this 

action. An evaluation of these areas for 

either delisting or additional recovery 

efforts will be addressed in subsequent 

efforts. 

Designating the NRM Distinct 

Population Segment 

Issue 14: Some commenters suggested 

that we improperly designated the NRM 

DPS. 

Response 14: As described above, the 

NRM DPS is biologically based, 

appropriate, and was developed in 

accordance with the Act and the DPS 

Policy. The Service has the authority to 

list, reclassify, or delist at the 

subspecies, species, or DPS level, as we 

believe to be most appropriate to carry 

out the purpose of the Act. 

Issue 15: Some commenters suggested 

that the NRM gray wolf population is 

not a DPS because all populations in the 

lower 48 States were once connected. 

Thus, the population should not be 

considered discrete. 

Response 15: A comprehensive 

evaluation of the NRM gray wolf 

population’s discreteness is included in 

the ‘‘Analysis for Discreteness’’ section 

above. The Act and the DPS Policy 

require that a DPS be discrete from other 

existing populations. Historical 

distribution has no bearing on the NRM 

population’s current discreteness. The 

boundaries of the NRM DPS are based 

on likely dispersal distances and 

surrounding unsuitable habitat. 

We believe a continuous 

uninterrupted population throughout 

most of the lower 48 States, as existed 

historically, is not achievable. The best 

scientific and commercial information 

available suggests the NRM population 

will remain markedly separated from 

other gray wolf populations in the lower 

48 States. Occupancy in the vast 

majority of intervening areas is 

unsustainable because most of those 

areas have been too modified by people 

for wolf packs to persist. 

Issue 16: Several commenters 

suggested that the DPS policy is to be 

used only in listing decisions and that 

using it in a delisting decision violates 

Congressional intent and the legislative 

and statutory structure of the Act. 

Response 16: The Act, its 

implementing regulations, and our DPS 

policy provide no support for this 

interpretation. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act 

directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

determine whether ‘‘any species’’ is 

endangered or threatened. Numerous 

sections of the Act refer to adding and 

removing ‘‘species’’ from the list of 

threatened or endangered plants and 

animals. Section 3(15) defines ‘‘species’’

to include any subspecies ‘‘* * * and 

any distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

***’’ The Act directs us to list, 

reclassify, and delist species, 

subspecies, and DPSs of vertebrate 

species. It contains no provisions 

requiring, or even allowing, DPSs to be 

treated in a different manner than 

species or subspecies when carrying out 

the listing, recovery, and delisting 

functions mandated by section 4. 

Furthermore, our DPS Policy states that 

the policy is intended for ‘‘the purposes 

of listing, delisting, and reclassifying 

species under the Act’’ (61 FR 4722, 

February 7, 1996), and that it ‘‘guides 

the evaluation of distinct vertebrate 

population segments for the purposes of 

listing, delisting, and reclassifying 

under the Act’’ (61 FR 4725, February 7, 

1996). 

These comments also overlook the 

untenable situation that would arise if 

DPSs could be listed, but could never be 

delisted, after they have been 

successfully recovered. Clearly Congress 

did not envision such an outcome when 

amending the definition of species to 

include vertebrate DPSs. 

Issue 17: It was pointed out that the 

designation of the NRM DPS created a 

remnant population. Some suggested 

this violates the Act as the Act allows 

us to ‘‘consider listing only an entire 

species, subspecies, or DPS’’ (Alsea 

Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 

2d 1154, 1162 (D. Or. 2001)); therefore, 

we cannot declare part of a listed 

species a DPS without also designating 

the remaining listed species as DPS(s). 

We should reconsider the status of all 

other wolf populations in the lower 48 

States simultaneously and should not 

delist the NRM population until we 

consider recovery goals and planning 

for all other wolf populations/areas in 

the lower 48 States. 

Response 17: While in some 

situations it may be appropriate to 

designate multiple DPSs 

simultaneously, the Act does not require 

it. This flexibility allows the Service to 

subsequently list or delist additional 

DPSs when additional information 

becomes available or as the conservation 

status of the taxon changes. Importantly, 

the court held that the Act allows this 

flexibility. In National Wildlife 

Federation v. Norton (385 F. Supp. 2d 

553, 565 (D. Vt. 2005), the court found 

that ‘‘Nowhere in the Act is the 

Secretary prevented from creating a 

‘non-DPS remnant’ designation, 

especially when the remnant area was 

already listed * * *’’ Our current 

designation of a NRM DPS, while 

retaining the remaining other wolves 

listed as endangered or nonessential 

experimental, is consistent with this 

aspect of the District Court’s ruling. 

Issue 18: Some suggested that the 

Service should use subspecies to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10530 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

designate DPSs across the gray wolf’s 

historical range and these DPSs should 

replace or supplement the current 

recovery zones. Others thought the 

current program illegally restored the 

wrong subspecies of wolf to Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming. 

Response 18: The subspecific 

classification for the gray wolf identified 

by Hall (1984, pp. 2–11) is no longer in 

accordance with accepted, although 

evolving, scientific taxonomic literature 

and approaches (Service 1994, p. 1–21–

22; Brewster and Fritts 1995, p. 353; 

Nowak 1995, p. 375; Nowak 2003, pp. 

248–50), including new genetic analysis 

(Wayne and Vila 2003, pp. 223–4; 

Leonard et al. 2005; p. 1; Leonard and 

Wayne 2007, p. 1). Newer molecular 

techniques indicate distinct subspecies 

classifications or ranges are not 

appropriate when evaluating natural 

diversity and evolution in wolves. We 

accept the holarctic species (Canis 

lupus) concept without regard to 

theoretical historic subspecies 

designations. Therefore, we do not 

consider the wolves we reintroduced 

from Canada as a separate subspecies. 

Theoretical use of multiple DPSs to 

reestablish wolf populations in areas 

outside the recovered NRM DPS is 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

Issue 19: It was suggested that a wolf 

dispersing outside of the DPS 

boundaries (e.g., into Colorado) may 

create confusion among State, Federal, 

and Tribal agencies regarding the status 

of that wolf. To address this confusion, 

some believed that any wolf originating 

from the NRM DPS should be 

considered part of that DPS, regardless 

of where they are geographically. 

Response 19: Consistent with Section 

4(c) of the Act, the status of individual 

members of any species, subspecies, or 

DPS is dependent on its geographic 

location. We used easily identifiable 

boundaries, such as the center line of 

major highways or State borders, to 

minimize management confusion. Once 

this rule goes into effect, if a wolf goes 

beyond the NRM DPS boundary it 

attains the listing status of the area it 

has entered (i.e., endangered in much of 

the lower 48 States except where listed 

as nonessential experimental or 

delisted, as in the WGL DPS). Similarly, 

if a wolf enters the NRM DPS, it would 

not be listed and would be managed 

according to the relevant State 

management plan. State and Federal 

agencies adjacent to the NRM DPS are 

aware of and understand the 

management implications of the DPS 

boundaries. While we believe that 

future dispersal and conflicts outside 

the DPS will be rare, we will continue 

to work with any affected States or 

Tribes to resolve them. 

Issue 20: Numerous comments 

suggested the border of the DPS was 

improperly developed. Some suggested 

the DPS should have been larger, while 

others thought it should have been 

smaller. Some believe that because the 

boundaries were mainly highways or 

State borders, they were arbitrary and 

not based on sound biological principles 

or natural features like rivers. The 

adjacent States requested that the NRM 

DPS boundary be changed to include 

most of Utah, Nevada, and Oregon, 

some of eastern North and South 

Dakota, and none of Washington. 

Response 20: The boundary of the 

NRM DPS was established by analyzing 

the distribution of potentially suitable 

and unsuitable habitat for wolves in the 

NRM and the documented dispersal 

distances of radio-collared wolves. 

These are the most likely factors to 

influence a split between the NRM DPS 

and other potential areas of occupancy. 

A smaller DPS might split the biological 

entity. A larger DPS might split a 

neighboring biological entity, should 

one ever be established. According to 

our DPS policy, an artificial or 

manmade boundary (such as Interstate, 

Federal, and State highways, or State 

borders) may be used as a boundary of 

convenience in order to clearly identify 

the geographic area included within the 

DPS. We believe such use of easily 

understood boundaries will promote 

public understanding of the decision. In 

this case, the NRM DPS boundaries 

were defined along easily identifiable 

boundaries that represent the most 

appropriate DPS for this population (see 

DPS discussion in this rule for our 

rationale). While some suggested ‘‘more 

biological’’ borders like rivers or 

geological features, we do not believe 

such borders are of any greater 

biological meaning to wolves given their 

ability to cross nearly any geographic 

feature and distance (Linnell et al. 

2005). In our view, the biological 

influences of suitable and unsuitable 

habitat in combination with mortality 

risk are likely to have the greatest 

influence on separation among 

populations. 

Defining Suitable Habitat 

Issue 21: Some commenters thought 

we should explain why some 

historically occupied lands were 

excluded from our definition of suitable 

habitat. 

Response 21: Our identification of 

suitable habitat was based on the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding successful 

utilization of habitat. Many areas of 

historic wolf habitat are no longer 

capable of supporting wolves. Most of 

these areas have been so modified by 

human activities as to be unsuitable for 

wolves. This issue is discussed in more 

detail in Factor A below. 

Issue 22: Some commenters suggested 

that we improperly considered more 

than strictly biological criteria in 

defining suitable habitat by allowing the 

definition of suitable to consider human 

tolerance. Others suggested that we 

misinterpreted the habitat suitability 

models because they only present 

probabilities of successful occupation 

by wolves under current conditions. 

Response 22: Our approach to suitable 

habitat considered a variety of factors 

including but not limited to human 

tolerance. Suitable wolf habitat in the 

NRM is generally characterized as 

public land with mountainous, forested 

habitat that contains abundant yearround wild ungulate populations, low 

road density, low numbers of domestic 

livestock that are only present 

seasonally, few domestic sheep, low 

agricultural use, and few people. 

Unsuitable wolf habitat is not capable of 

supporting viable populations. In the 

NRM, unsuitable habitat is generally 

considered private land, flat open 

prairie or desert, lands containing low 

or seasonal wild ungulate populations, 

high road density, high numbers of yearround domestic livestock including 

many domestic sheep, high levels of 

agricultural use, and many people. 

When wolves occur in places with high 

levels of human activity, they 

experience an increased mortality risk. 

The level of impact from such mortality 

is directly related to the location and 

numbers of humans and their activities. 

In terms of suitable habitat models, 

we recognize that none of the available 

models are exact indicators of what is 

‘‘suitable.’’ Each model only identifies 

areas with a 50 percent or greater 

chance of being suitable. Thus, we made 

our determination based upon a number 

of factors including, but not limited to, 

these models. 

Foreseeable Future 

Issue 23: Some commenters believed 

that limiting foreseeable future to 30 

years was inappropriate. 

Response 23: For the NRM DPS, the 

foreseeable future differs for each factor 

potentially impacting the DPS and we 

revised our definition of foreseeable 

future in this final rule to take into 

account the variability of what is 

foreseeable for each threat factor. 

However, for most factors impacting the 

NRM DPS, we believe a window of up 

to 30 years is foreseeable. We consider 

this to be a reasonable timeframe 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10531 

because: (1) It took approximately this 

long from listing for public attitudes and 

regulations to result in a social climate 

that promoted and allowed for wolf 

restoration in the WGL DPS and NRM 

DPS; (2) this timeframe represents about 

ten wolf generations (3 years each) 

which is about how long it took for 

wolves in both the NRM DPS and WGL 

DPS to expand numbers and exceed 

their biological recovery criteria; and (3) 

available habitat and potential future 

distribution models (Carroll et al. 2003, 

536; Carroll et al. 2006, Figure 6) predict 

out about this far. For some threat 

factors, a longer time horizon may be 

appropriate. For example, in our 

consideration of genetics, we reviewed 

a paper that looked 100 years into the 

future (vonHoldt et al. 2007). When 

evaluating the available information, 

with respect to foreseeable future, we 

take into account reduced confidence as 

we forecast further into the future. 

Potential Threats to the NRM DPS 

Issue 24: A number of commenters 

disputed our analysis of the five listing 

factors, suggesting alternative scenarios 

where the NRM wolf population would 

be threatened in the future. 

Response 24: We updated and 

augmented the final rule’s five-factor 

analysis to address specific issues 

raised. Our analysis revealed that none 

of these potential factors will threaten 

the NRM DPS wolf population in the 

foreseeable future. 

Issue 25: It was suggested that we did 

not fully evaluate or acknowledge the 

potential impacts from oil and gas 

development or other human 

development on the wolf population. 

Other habitat issues in the NRM that 

required additional consideration 

included rapid human population 

growth and the resulting increase in 

houses, roads, recreation, and wolf/ 

human conflicts. 

Response 25: These issues are now 

considered under Factor A below. 

Issue 26: Some commenters thought 

that the Service should reduce the 

future threat to wolves by requiring that 

livestock be reduced or eliminated on 

public lands. 

Response 26: Wolves and livestock, 

primarily cattle and horses, can live 

near one another for extended periods of 

time without significant conflict. 

Through active management, most 

wolves do not learn that livestock can 

be successfully attacked and do not 

view them as prey. However, when 

wolves and livestock mix some 

livestock and some wolves are 

inevitably killed. Furthermore, when 

wolves learn to attack livestock, that 

behavior can quickly be learned by 

other wolves if it is not stopped. Since 

large numbers of wild ungulates winter 

on private property, even wolves that 

prey exclusively on wild ungulates will 

be in close proximity to livestock during 

at least some portion of the year. Wolf 

recovery has occurred and will continue 

to be maintained without modification 

of traditional western land-use practices 

and without removing livestock from 

public grazing allotments. Public lands 

in the NRM can have both large 

predators and seasonal livestock 

grazing. The Service has no need, for the 

purposes of wolf recovery, for livestock 

grazing practices on either public or 

private land to be modified, because 

wolf recovery is not threatened by the 

current levels of activities. Regulating 

livestock grazing on public lands is 

under the authorities of the respective 

land management agencies. We believe 

State management will continue to 

successfully balance traditional 

livestock grazing practices, open space, 

and wolf conservation. 

Issue 27: Some commenters were 

concerned about humane treatment of 

wolves and were opposed to certain 

methods of take, particularly aerial 

gunning and poisoning. Numerous 

parties suggested that the Service 

should not allow public hunting of 

wolves. Others suggested that we should 

require the use of nonlethal control 

tools to reduce conflict with livestock. 

Response 27: After delisting, we have 

determined that the States regulating 

wolves in the NRM DPS will not 

threaten the wolf population. However, 

we have no jurisdiction over the method 

or timing of State management or 

control of a delisted species. In 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, wolves 

listed as trophy game can only be taken 

by the public as prescribed by State 

statute, usually fair chase hunting or 

regulated trapping. Wildlife listed as 

predatory animals are generally not 

covered by State anti-cruelty laws (e.g., 

Wyoming Title 6, Chapter 3, Article 2), 

so methods of take are not regulated. 

Wildlife agency professionals adhere to 

specific protocols when they capture, 

handle, or euthanize wildlife for 

research or management purposes. In 

the vast majority of situations, wolf 

control will be accomplished by 

regulated public hunting and trapping 

or agency control of problem wolves. 

State authorized wolf control may 

include, just as the federally authorized 

control program currently does, gunning 

from the air and ground, trapping, and, 

in a few cases, removing pups from 

dens. Deliberate poisoning of wolves 

will not be allowed due to current 

Environmental Protection Agency label 

restrictions on the use and application 

of all poisons (including M–44 devices) 

capable of killing wolves. Humane 

treatment of wolves in National Parks 

would be unaffected by delisting. 

Hunting (and in some areas even 

unregulated hunting) has not threatened 

wolf populations (Boitani 2003). 

Hunting is a valuable, efficient, and 

cost-effective tool to help manage 

wildlife populations. Viable robust wolf 

populations in Canada, Alaska, and 

other parts of the world are hunted. The 

Service recognized (Service 1994, p. 1–

13) and encouraged (Bangs et al. in 

press) State wolf management programs 

to incorporate regulated public hunting 

in their wolf conservation programs. 

Conservation programs to restore large 

predators such as mountain lions, black 

bears, and wolves succeeded because of 

the historic restoration of wild 

ungulates, such as elk and deer, by State 

fish and game agencies and hunter 

dollars and involvement (Geist et al. 

2001, p. 175–181). 

While not required by the Act, the 

States and Tribes will continue to use a 

combination of management options in 

order to reduce wolf/human conflicts 

including nonlethal forms of control 

(Bangs et al. 2006). However, these 

methods are effective in only some 

circumstances, and no single tool is a 

cure for every problem. Lethal control 

will still be required in many 

circumstances. Lethal control can also 

improve the overall effectiveness of 

nonlethal methods (Brietenmoser et al. 

2005, p. 70). 

Issue 28: Many people commented 

that the State regulatory frameworks, 

especially those of Idaho and Wyoming, 

were not adequate and should not have 

been approved. Commenters cited antiwolf statements by public officials and 

county ordinances as evidence that 

persecution of wolves will resume if 

delisting occurs. Some expressed their 

opinion that Wyoming’s 2003 State law 

and management plan were inadequate, 

while others argued we were wrong not 

to approve the measures as an adequate 

regulatory mechanism. Some felt that 

Wyoming’s revised protections 

remained inadequate. Some were 

concerned the States would not honor 

their commitments or would change 

their laws to persecute wolves after 

delisting. Others maintained that none 

of the NRM DPS should be delisted 

until all States within the DPS 

(including Oregon, Washington, and 

Utah) had approved wolf management 

plans. Finally, some wanted the States 

to manage for breeding pairs rather than 

undefined packs. 

Response 28: We recognize that 

human persecution of wolves was the 

primary reason for their wide-spread 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10532 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

extirpation across North America. We 

fully analyzed the nature and magnitude 

of this threat in Factors C and D below. 

Despite statements to the media by some 

public officials and some county 

ordinances that, if implemented, would 

be problematic for maintenance of a 

recovered wolf population, the official 

written policy and laws of the States, 

committing them to manage for a wolf 

population that always exceeds 

minimum recovery levels, supersede 

county rules and authorities and 

statements by politicians reported by 

the media. 

Our evaluation of State regulatory 

mechanisms considered all the laws, 

regulations, ordinances, resolutions, 

memorials, statements by elected 

officials, and State plans for Montana, 

Idaho and Wyoming. The States of 

Idaho (2002) and Montana (2003) 

adopted State laws and management 

plans that meet the requirements of the 

Act and will conserve a recovered wolf 

population into the foreseeable future. 

While we continue to believe the 2003 

Wyoming law and wolf management 

plan were not sufficient to maintain 

Wyoming’s share of a recovered NRM 

DPS (Williams 2004, pp. 1–3; 71 FR 

43410, August 1, 2006; 71 FR 6634, 

February 8, 2006; 72 FR 6106, February 

8, 2007), we have determined that the 

2007 Wyoming State law and wolf 

management plan meet the 

requirements of the Act and will 

conserve Wyoming’s share of a 

recovered wolf population into the 

foreseeable future (assuming they are 

allowed to become effective; see 

discussion under Factor D below) (72 

FR 36939, July 6, 2007; Hall 2007). We 

believe these regulatory mechanisms are 

adequate to ensure that the wolf 

population in the NRM DPS will remain 

well above recovery levels into the 

foreseeable future (Williams 2004, pp. 

1–3; Hall 2007, p. 1). The discrepancy 

between breeding pairs and packs no 

longer appears relevant as all three 

States have committed to measure wolf 

recovery criteria by breeding pairs and 

numbers of wolves (Montana 2003; 

IDFG 2007; Wyoming 2007). We used 

peer review, public review during 

rulemaking, and our own expertise to 

assess whether the State plans provided 

adequate regulatory mechanisms to 

ensure a recovered wolf population into 

the foreseeable future. 

Any wolf conservation by the Tribes 

and the States of Washington, Oregon, 

and Utah will be beneficial, but is not 

necessary to either achieving or 

maintaining a recovered wolf 

population in the NRM DPS. These 

areas contain little habitat suitable to 

support persistent wolf packs and any 

wolf breeding pairs that might occur 

there in the future would be too few and 

distant from the core recovery areas to 

affect the viability of the contiguous 

NRM wolf population. Still, Oregon and 

Utah have State wolf management 

plans/strategies and Washington is 

developing one (see Factor D). The 

Service has not approved these plans 

and we do not have any need to do so 

in order to finalize this delisting action. 

This is consistent with the recovery 

plan which considered parts of these 

States (Service 1987, p. 2). 

State management will provide 

mechanisms for the control of problem 

wolves, including allowing landowners 

to take wolves in certain situations and 

allowing regulated public harvest of 

surplus wolves in the NRM DPS. This 

flexibility in wolf control is expected to 

increase public tolerance (Idaho 2007, 

Appendix A). 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have 

committed in their laws and plans to 

maintain the wolf population safely 

above recovery levels by regulating 

human-caused mortality. Mandatory 

post-delisting monitoring includes 

evaluating any threats to the NRM wolf 

population as well as its distribution 

and numbers. A decline of wolf 

populations below recovery goals due to 

failure of the States to honor their 

commitments or for other reasons could 

result in relisting under the Act. 

Issue 29: Some suggested wolf 

management needs to be transferred to 

the States and Tribes. 

Response 29: The Service agrees that 

a recovered wolf population is best 

managed by the respective States and 

Tribes. The States have relatively large 

and well-distributed professional fish 

and game agencies with demonstrated 

skills and experience that have 

successfully managed a diversity of 

resident species, including large 

carnivores, and will do a similarly 

outstanding job of managing a recovered 

wolf population. State management of 

wolves will be in alignment with the 

classic State-led North American model 

for wildlife management, which has 

been extremely successful at restoring, 

maintaining, and expanding the 

distribution of numerous populations of 

other wildlife species, including other 

large predators, throughout North 

America (Geist 2006, p. 1). 

The Service delisted the WGL wolf 

population in early 2007, returning 

management of this population to the 

States and Tribes. Under cooperative 

agreements with us, Montana, Idaho, 

and the Nez Perce Tribe have 

successfully managed wolves in those 

States for the past 3 years. The Service 

worked closely with Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming as they developed their 

wolf management plans to ensure that 

they will always manage for a wolf 

population that exceeds recovery 

criteria. We are confident the States and 

Tribes will adequately manage wolves 

so the protections of the Act will not be 

required in the foreseeable future. 

Issue 30: Some parties feared that 

State wolf management plans might not 

be implemented because funding for the 

plans is not guaranteed. Therefore, they 

concluded that the Service could not 

rely on them as adequate regulatory 

mechanisms, and delisting should not 

occur. 

Response 30: Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming all recognize that 

implementation of their wolf 

management plans requires funding. 

The States have committed to secure the 

necessary funding to manage the wolf 

populations under the guidelines 

established by their Service-approved 

State wolf management plans (Idaho 

2002; pp. 23–25; Montana 2003, pp. xiv; 

Idaho 2007, pp. 24, 47–48; Wyoming 

2007, pp. 29–31). All have worked with 

their congressional delegations to secure 

Federal funding, but recognized that 

other sources of funding may eventually 

be required to implement their plans. In 

addition to State license fees or other 

forms of State funding, Federal funding 

could be available to help manage a 

delisted wolf population including in 

the form of directed appropriations, 

Pittman-Robinson Wildlife Restoration 

Act, other Federal grant programs, and 

private funding. The Service will 

continue to assist the States to secure 

adequate funding for wolf management. 

If wolf management by a State was to be 

completely unfunded or was inadequate 

to carry out the basic commitments of 

an approved State plan, then the 

promised management of threats by the 

States and the required monitoring of 

wolf populations might not be 

addressed. That scenario could trigger a 

status review for possible relisting 

under the Act. 

Issue 31: Several parties suggested 

that we should have considered the risk 

to the wolf population from catastrophic 

events such as fire, climate change, 

drought, disease, and stochastic events. 

Response 31: In response to these 

comments, we added a discussion of 

catastrophic events under Factor E 

below. Other potential catastrophic 

events are considered in other sections 

including our evaluation of habitat 

modification, diseases and parasites, 

human harassment and killing, genetic 

risks, climate change, and human 

attitudes. 

Issue 32: Some suggested that the 

Service should consider the potential 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10533 

effect of low genetic diversity on gray 

wolf recovery. They contend that 300 

wolves and 30 breeding pairs is not high 

enough to maintain long-term genetic 

viability. These comments also suggest 

that the isolation of the GYA precluded 

a natural metapopulation dynamic for 

wolves in the NRM. 

Response 32: Low genetic diversity 

and inbreeding is a concern for species 

with small populations or that have 

gone through a population bottleneck. 

We have fully analyzed this issue in 

Section E below. After careful 

consideration of all of the available 

information on this issue, we do not 

believe that low genetic diversity will 

threaten the NRM DPS in the 

foreseeable future. 

Issue 33: Many pointed out that 

natural connectivity is an important 

consideration for the long-term 

conservation of the NRM wolf 

population. Some suggested that we 

should provide habitat protections for 

identified natural linkage zones between 

and within the GYA and central Idaho 

and northwestern Montana. It was also 

suggested that we should identify 

critical habitat for these linkage zones. 

Response 33: Wolves have an unusual 

ability to disperse long distances rapidly 

across virtually any habitat and to select 

mates to maximize genetic diversity. 

Thus, connectivity issues are less likely 

to affect wolves than nearly any other 

species of land mammal (Paquet et al. 

2006, p. 3). Although it is highly 

unlikely there would ever be a need, 

complications from a potential lack of 

natural habitat connectivity could be 

quickly resolved by agency 

management, such as relocations. 

Connectivity and genetics are discussed 

further below under factors A and E, 

respectively. 

Additionally, connectivity for wildlife 

across the NRM remains an important 

and high-priority issue for the Service 

and our partner wildlife agencies. A 

process to identify, maintain, and 

improve wildlife movement areas 

between the large blocks of public land 

in the NRM is ongoing (Servheen et al. 

2003, p. 3). This interagency effort 

involves 13 State and Federal agencies 

working on linkage facilitation across 

private lands, public lands, and 

highways (Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee 1994, 2001, pp. 1–2; Brown 

2007, pp. 1–3). To date, this effort has 

included: (1) Development of a written 

protocol and guidance document on 

how to implement linkage zone 

management on public lands (Public 

Land Linkage Taskforce 2004, pp. 3–5); 

(2) production of several private land 

linkage management documents 

(Service 1997; Parker and Parker 2002, 

p. 2); (3) analyses of linkage zone 

management in relation to highways 

(Geodata Services Inc. 2005, p. 2; Waller 

and Servheen 2005, p. 998); and (4) a 

workshop in the spring of 2006 on 

implementing management actions for 

wildlife linkage (the proceedings of 

which are available online at: http:// 

www.cfc.umt.edu/linkage). The 

objective of this work is to maintain and 

enhance movement opportunities for all 

wildlife species across the NRM. 

Although this linkage work is not 

directly associated with the wolf 

population, it may benefit wolves even 

after delisting. 

No critical habitat was ever, nor 

required to be, designated in the NRM 

for wolves under Section 4 of the Act. 

Critical habitat can only be designated 

under the Act for threatened and 

endangered species. There is no legal 

basis to designate critical habitat for the 

delisted NRM DPS. 

Issue 34: Some commenters stated 

that we failed to consider the impacts of 

State hunts on the social structure of 

wolf packs. 

Response 34: This issue is now 

considered under Factor E below. 

Issue 35: Some commenters 

encouraged us to investigate human 

dimensions with a protocol that would 

allow quantification of changes in the 

attitudes of the general public, farmers, 

hunters, and other stakeholders. 

Response 35: We agree that the values 

people hold about wolves may provide 

valuable insight into successful 

management strategies (Peek et al. 1991, 

p. 15). The States have already 

conducted surveys about human values 

towards wolves (Idaho 2007, Appendix 

A; as one example) and will likely 

continue to do so in the future. We 

believe this information may be helpful 

to formulate State policies. However, 

such monitoring is not required by the 

Act in order to justify delisting. 

Significant Portion of Range 

Issue 36: Some commenters expressed 

dissenting views and interpretations of 

the Act’s phrase ‘‘significant portion of 

its range’’ (SPR) in the definition of a 

threatened or an endangered species. 

Several believed that ‘‘range’’ should 

mean historical range and provided us 

with Vucetich et al. (2006) as support 

for their position. Others opined that 

our definition was the same used in our 

2003 rule that was invalidated by the 

court (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003). Still 

others suggested our consideration of 

SPR should consider all suitable or 

potential habitat. 

Response 36: On March 16, 2007, the 

Solicitor of the Department of the 

Interior issued a memorandum opinion 

with an extensive evaluation of the 

meaning of ‘‘in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ (Department of the Interior, 

Office of the Solicitor 2007). As 

elaborated in this opinion, we believe 

the law is clear that ‘‘range’’ in this 

phrase refers to ‘‘current range,’’ not 

‘‘historical range’’ and that the Service 

therefore must focus primarily on 

current range. Data about the historical 

range and how the species came to be 

extinct in a portion of its historical 

range may be relevant in understanding 

or predicting whether a species is ‘‘in 

danger of extinction’’ in its current 

range. The fact that a species has ceased 

to exist in what may have been portions 

of its historical range does not 

necessarily mean that it is ‘‘in danger of 

extinction’’ in a significant portion of 

the range where it currently exists. For 

the purposes of this rule, ‘‘range’’

includes all of the NRM DPS (as 

identified in Factor A below and 

illustrated in Figure 1). Thus, our fivefactor analysis analyzed threats across 

all portions of the NRM DPS. 

Public Involvement 

Issue 37: Some thought that the 

Service should have provided 

additional opportunities to learn more 

about the proposal and to provide 

comments including additional public 

hearings. Specifically, we received 

requests for hearings in Denver, CO, 

Seattle, WA, Portland, OR, and Jackson, 

WY. 

Response 37: We believe that we 

provided ample opportunity for public 

comment including public comment 

periods totaling 120 days and eight 

public hearings. Comments could be 

hand-delivered to us or submitted to us 

via e-mail, mail, the Federal eRulemaking Portal, fax, or public 

hearing testimony. We have provided 

public comment opportunities beyond 

the basic requirements of the Act and 

other Federal rulemaking procedures. 

We also alerted interested parties to 

the details of public hearings and 

opportunities for public comment. 

Public hearing times and locations and 

other avenues to comment were 

announced in the Federal Register, 

posted on our Web site and in our 

weekly wolf reports, and publicized in 

local and national press releases. All 

comments, whether presented at a 

public hearing or provided in another 

manner, received the same review and 

consideration. 

The Act requires that we hold one 

public hearing if requested; we held 8 

public hearings. We selected locations 

that were within a reasonable driving 

distance of people who live near wolves 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10534 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

and in every State within the NRM DPS. 

Commenting via e-mail, hand delivery, 

or letter allowed unlimited space to 

express comments, as opposed to the 

public hearing format, which limited 

comments to three minutes in order to 

provide an opportunity for all attending 

to speak. More than 283,000 comments 

were received. 

Scientific Analyses 

Issue 38: Some suggested that the 

Service should conduct a population 

viability analysis (PVA) or other 

additional modeling exercises or 

analysis (e.g. International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 

guidelines) before delisting. 

Response 38: The Act requires that we 

use the best scientific data available 

when we make decisions to list, 

reclassify, or delist a species. PVAs can 

be valuable as a tool to help us 

understand the population dynamics of 

a rare species (White 2000). They can be 

useful in identifying gaps in our 

knowledge of the demographic 

parameters that are most important to a 

species’ survival, but they cannot tell us 

how many individuals are necessary to 

avoid extinction. The difficulty of 

applying PVA techniques to wolves has 

been discussed by Fritts and Carbyn 

(1995) and Boitani (2003). Problems 

include: Our inability to provide 

accurate input information for the 

probability of occurrence of, and impact 

from, catastrophic events (such as a 

major disease outbreak or prey base 

collapse); Our inability to incorporate 

all the complexities and feedback loops 

inherent in wild systems and agency 

adaptive management strategies; our 

inability to provide realistic inputs for 

the influences of environmental 

variation (such as annual fluctuations in 

winter severity and the resulting 

impacts on prey abundance and 

vulnerability); temporal variation; 

selective outbreeding (vonHoldt et al. 

2007); individual heterogeneity; and 

difficulty in dealing with the spatial 

aspects of extreme territoriality and the 

long-distance dispersals shown by 

wolves. Relatively minor changes in any 

of these input values into a theoretical 

model can result in vastly different 

outcomes. 

Thus, we believe conducting a PVA 

type analysis on the effect of wolf 

population management would be of 

limited value in the NRM DPS. Instead, 

we relied upon an extensive body of 

empirical data on wolves and the NRM 

wolf population. We believe the State 

commitments for adaptive management 

preclude the usefulness of theorizing 

about the potential status of the NRM 

wolf population under fixed criteria. We 

also utilized models that employed 

PVA-like parameters and analysis to 

help identify potentially suitable wolf 

habitat in the NRM DPS now and into 

the future (Carroll et al. 2003, 2006; 

Carroll 2006). The IUCN Redlist (IUCN 

2007; http://www.iucnredlist.org; Bangs 

and Smith in press) considers gray 

wolves in North America a species of 

least concern and does not list regional 

or local populations. Wolves in the 

NRM DPS are simply the southwestern 

tip of a biologically-secure contiguous 

North American wolf population 

containing tens of thousands of 

individuals. 

While some suggested that we 

conduct a PVA based on maintenance of 

30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves or 

capping a wolf population at an 

arbitrary level, we believe this would 

lead to an inaccurate and misleading 

conclusion. Any such analysis would 

ignore the fluctuating nature of wildlife 

populations, actual requirements of the 

recovery goal, and the States’

commitments to manage well above that 

level and to adjust their management 

strategies should the wolf population 

ever appear not to be meeting the State’s 

management objectives. 

Issue 39: Some commenters felt that it 

was difficult to judge the scientific 

validity of the science we relied upon 

because some of the science and 

literature was gray literature, had not 

been peer reviewed, was in preparation, 

or was through personal 

communication. 

Response 39: While we attempt to use 

peer-reviewed literature to the 

maximum extent possible, the Act 

requires us to make our decision based 

on the best scientific and commercial 

data available. Because we have so 

many ongoing research and monitoring 

projects, new data are constantly being 

collected, analyzed, peer reviewed, and 

published. Such information often 

represents the best scientific data 

available (Service et al. 2007, pp. 64, 

114, 183, 213), which the Service cannot 

ignore. All citations are available upon 

request. 

Relisting Criteria 

Issue 40: Some comments suggested 

we develop a clear, unequivocal set of 

criteria for automatic relisting. Some 

comments argued that monitoring is not 

sufficient if the results of investigations 

are not promptly incorporated in policy 

and management, and this type of rapid 

response requires availability of 

contingency funds, clear roles and 

authorities, and the power to impose the 

necessary actions on all involved 

partners. They suggest, that because the 

effectiveness of the monitoring program 

depends ‘‘* * * upon adequate funding 

to provide research results with 

scientifically acceptable confidence 

limits,’’ the monitoring plan should 

have secure funding for at least 5 to 10 

years before delisting occurs. 

Response 40: Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming have committed to monitor 

the wolf population according to the 

breeding pair standard and to publish 

annual reports of their activities for at 

least the first 5 years after delisting. We 

will post this information and our 

analysis of it on our Web site annually. 

We believe that our criteria for 

relisting are clear. Four scenarios could 

lead us to initiate a status review and 

analysis of threats to determine if 

relisting was warranted including: (1) If 

the wolf population for any one State 

falls below the minimum NRM wolf 

population recovery level of 10 breeding 

pairs of wolves and 100 wolves in either 

Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming; (2) if the 

wolf population segment in Montana, 

Idaho, or Wyoming falls below 15 

breeding pairs or 150 wolves in any one 

of those States for 3 consecutive years; 

(3) if the wolf population in Wyoming 

outside of YNP falls below 7 breeding 

pairs for 3 consecutive years; or (4) if a 

change in State law or management 

objectives would significantly increase 

the threat to the wolf population. All 

such reviews would be made available 

for public review and comment, 

including peer review by select species 

experts. 

Any such status review would 

analyze status relative to the definition 

of threatened or endangered considering 

the 5 factors outlined in section 4(a)(1). 

If, at any time, data indicate that 

protective status under the Act should 

be reinstated, we can initiate listing 

procedures, including, if appropriate, 

emergency listing. If emergency listing 

was instituted, we would then have 240 

days to complete a conventional listing 

rule before the protections of the 

emergency rule would expire. 

Funding for government programs is 

never certain at any level, but the 

funding to support wolf management 

activities of the various Federal and 

State agencies in the NRM has been 

consistently obligated for the past 20 

years, and we have a high level of 

confidence that the resources necessary 

to carry out the monitoring and 

management programs will continue for 

the foreseeable future. We may provide 

Federal funding for Federal monitoring 

requirements. 

Use of Section 6 Agreements for States 

Outside the NRM DPS 

Issue 41: Our proposal solicited 

comments regarding our intention to use 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10535 

ESA section 6 agreements to allow 

States outside the NRM DPS with 

Service-approved wolf management 

plans to assume management of listed 

wolves, including nonlethal and lethal 

control of problem wolves. Some 

comments suggested this approach was 

inappropriate while others applauded 

the idea. 

Response 41: This issue is not directly 

related to delisting in the NRM DPS and 

has been removed from this final rule. 

We will work with adjacent States to 

evaluate the appropriate mechanisms 

for States to manage listed wolves, 

including control of problem wolves. 

Miscellaneous Issues Not Germane to 

This Rulemaking 

Issue 42: Some comments pointed out 

the positive and negative economic 

impacts of wolves, especially related to 

tourism in YNP, livestock depredation, 

and competition with hunters for 

surplus big game. 

Response 42: Under the Act, listing 

decisions are not to consider economic 

factors. That said, we believe wolfrelated tourism in places like YNP will 

not be affected by delisting. 

Additionally, State management will 

reduce economic losses caused by 

livestock depredation and competition 

with hunters for wild ungulates. 

Issue 43: Many comments were made 

on issues that were not related to or 

affected by this rulemaking. Most often 

these issues involved strongly held 

personal opinions or perceptions about 

Federal, State, or Tribal government or 

authorities, property rights, methods of 

take, risks to human safety, negative 

affects to hunting, outfitting, livestock 

production, tourism, ecosystem 

restoration, the U.S. Constitution, 

wildlife management in general, wolves 

and wolf management, and 

modifications to the NRM experimental 

population special 10(j) rule. 

Response 43: While we respect these 

personal values, they are beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

424) set forth the procedures for listing, 

reclassifying, or removing species from 

listed status. ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the 

Act as including any species or 

subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant, 

and any distinct vertebrate population 

segment of fish or wildlife that 

interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 

1532(16)). Under 50 CFR 424.11(d), we 

may remove the protections of the Act 

if the best available scientific and 

commercial data substantiate that the 

species is neither endangered nor 

threatened for the following reasons: (1) 

The species is extinct; (2) the species 

has recovered; or (3) the original 

scientific data used at the time the 

species was classified were in error. 

A species may be delisted as 

recovered only if the best scientific and 

commercial data available indicate that 

it is no longer endangered or threatened. 

Determining whether a species meets 

the recovered definition requires 

consideration of the five categories of 

threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act. For species that are already listed 

as endangered or threatened, this 

analysis of threats is an evaluation of 

both the threats currently facing the 

species and the threats that are 

reasonably likely to affect the species in 

the foreseeable future following the 

delisting or downlisting and the 

removal or reduction of the Act’s 

protections. 

Under section 3 of the Act, a species 

is ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ and is 

‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a ‘‘significant 

portion of its range.’’ The word ‘‘range’’

in the phrase ‘‘significant portion of its 

range’’ refers to the range in which the 

species currently exists. For the 

purposes of this rule, ‘‘range’’ includes 

all of the NRM DPS (as identified in 

Factor A below and illustrated in Figure 

1). 

Evaluating whether the species 

should be considered threatened or 

endangered in all or a significant 

portion of its range is a multiple-step 

analysis. If we determine that the 

species is endangered throughout all of 

its range, we list it as endangered 

throughout its range and no further 

analysis is necessary. If not, we then 

evaluate if the species meets the 

definition of threatened throughout all 

of its range. If the species is threatened 

in all of its range, we list the species as 

threatened and consider if any 

significant portions of its range warrant 

listing as endangered. If we determine 

that the species is not threatened or 

endangered in all of its range, we 

consider whether any significant 

portions of its range warrant 

consideration as threatened or 

endangered. If we determine that the 

species is threatened or endangered in 

a significant portion of its range, the 

provisions of the Act would only apply 

to the significant portion of the species’

range where it is threatened or 

endangered. 

Foreseeable future is defined by the 

Services on a case-by-case basis, taking 

into account a variety of species-specific 

factors such as lifespan, genetics, 

breeding behavior, demography, threat 

projection timeframes, and 

environmental variability. 

‘‘Foreseeable’’ is commonly viewed as 

‘‘such as reasonably can or should be 

anticipated: such that a person of 

ordinary prudence would expect it to 

occur or exist under the circumstances’’

(Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law 

1996; Western Watershed Project v. Foss 

(D. Idaho 2005; CV 04–168–MHW). For 

the NRM DPS, the foreseeable future 

differs for each factor potentially 

impacting the DPS. For most factors 

impacting the NRM DPS, we believe a 

window of up to 30 years is foreseeable. 

We consider this to be a reasonable 

timeframe because: (1) It took 

approximately this long from listing for 

public attitudes and regulations to result 

in a social climate that promoted and 

allowed for wolf restoration in the WGL 

DPS and NRM DPS; (2) this timeframe 

represents about ten wolf generations (3 

years each) which is about how long it 

took for wolves in both the NRM DPS 

and WGL DPS to expand numbers and 

achieve their biological recovery 

criteria; and (3) available habitat and 

potential future distribution models 

(Carroll et al. 2003, 536; Carroll et al. 

2006, Figure 6) predict out about this 

far. For some threat factors, a longer 

time horizon may be appropriate. For 

example, in our consideration of 

genetics, we reviewed a paper that 

looked 100 years into the future 

(vonHoldt et al. 2007). When evaluating 

the available information, with respect 

to foreseeable future, we take into 

account reduced confidence as we 

forecast further into the future. 

The following analysis examines all 

five factors currently affecting, or that 

are likely to affect, the NRM gray wolf 

DPS within the foreseeable future. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The NRM DPS is approximately 

980,803 km2 (378,690 mi2) and includes 

402,606 km2 (155,447 mi2) of Federal 

land (41 percent); 49,803 km2 (19,229 

mi2) of State land (5 percent); 32,942 

km2 (12,719 mi2) of Tribal land (3 

percent); 427,998 km2 (165,251 mi2) of 

private land (44 percent) (the remaining 

area is either water or lands in 

Washington that were not categorized 

into ownership in the geographic 

information system (GIS) layers we 

analyzed). The NRM DPS contains large 

amounts of three Ecoregion Divisions—

Temperate Steppe (prairie) (312,148 km2

[120,521 mi2]); Temperate Steppe 

Mountain (forest) (404,921 km2 [156,341 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10536 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

mi2]); and Temperate Desert (high 

desert) (263,544 km2 [101,755 mi2]) 

(Bailey 1995, p. iv). The following 

analysis focuses on suitable habitat 

within the NRM DPS and areas 

currently occupied by persistent wolf 

packs (i.e., core recovery areas) (which 

may include intermittent unsuitable 

habitat). Then, unsuitable habitat is 

examined. A number of threats to 

habitat are examined including climate 

change, increased human populations 

and development (including oil and 

gas), connectivity, ungulate populations, 

and livestock grazing. 

Suitable Habitat—Wolves once 

occupied or transited all of the NRM 

DPS. However, much of the wolf’s 

historical range within the NRM DPS 

has been modified for human use and is 

no longer suitable habitat. We have 

reviewed the quality, quantity, and 

distribution of habitat relative to the 

biological requirements of wolves. In 

doing so we reviewed two models, 

Oakleaf et al. (2006, pp. 555–558) and 

Carroll et al. (2003, pp. 536–548; 2006, 

pp. 27–31; Carroll 2005, p. 1–3), to help 

us gauge the current amount and 

distribution of suitable wolf habitat in 

the NRM DPS. Both models ranked 

areas as suitable habitat if they had 

characteristics that suggested they might 

have a 50 percent or greater chance of 

supporting wolf packs. Suitable wolf 

habitat in the NRM DPS was typically 

characterized in both models as public 

land with mountainous, forested habitat 

that contains abundant year-round wild 

ungulate populations, low road density, 

low numbers of domestic livestock that 

are only present seasonally, few 

domestic sheep, low agricultural use, 

and few people. Unsuitable wolf habitat 

was typically just the opposite (i.e., 

private land, flat open prairie or desert, 

low or seasonal wild ungulate 

populations, high road density, high 

numbers of year-round domestic 

livestock including many domestic 

sheep, high levels of agricultural use, 

and many people). Despite their 

similarities, these two models had 

substantial differences in the area 

analyzed, GIS data layers, inputs, and 

assumptions. As a result, the Oakleaf et 

al. (2006, p. 559) and Carroll et al. 

(2006, p. 33) models predicted different 

amounts of theoretically suitable wolf 

habitat in areas examined by both 

models (i.e., portions of Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming). 

Oakleaf’s model was a more intensive 

effort that only looked at potential wolf 

habitat in Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 555). 

It used roads accessible to two-wheel 

and four-wheel vehicles, topography 

(slope and elevation), land ownership, 

relative ungulate density (based on State 

harvest statistics), cattle (Bos sp.) and 

sheep density, vegetation characteristics 

(ecoregions and land cover), and human 

density to comprise its GIS data layers. 

Oakleaf analyzed the characteristics of 

areas occupied and not occupied by 

NRM wolf packs through 2000 to 

predict what other areas in the NRM 

might be suitable or unsuitable for 

future wolf pack formation (Oakleaf et 

al. 2006, p. 555). In total, Oakleaf et al. 

(2006, p. 559) ranked 170,228 km2

(65,725 mi2) as suitable habitat in 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 

In contrast, Carroll’s model analyzed 

a much larger area (all 12 western States 

and northern Mexico) in a less specific 

way (Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27–31). 

Carroll’s model used density and type of 

roads, human population density and 

distribution, slope, and vegetative 

greenness as ‘‘pseudo-habitat’’ to 

estimate relative ungulate density to 

predict associated wolf survival and 

fecundity rates (Carroll et al. 2006, p. 

29). The combination of the GIS model 

and wolf population parameters were 

then used to develop estimates of 

habitat theoretically suitable for wolf 

pack persistence. In addition, Carroll 

predicted the potential effect on suitable 

wolf habitat of increased road 

development and human density 

expected by 2025 (Carroll et al. 2006, 

pp. 30–31). Within the NRM DPS, 

Carroll et al. (2006, pp. 27–31) ranked 

277,377 km2 (107,096 mi2) as suitable 

including 105,993 km2 (40,924 mi2) in 

Montana; 82,507 km2 (31,856 mi2) in 

Idaho; 77,202 km2 (29,808 mi2) in 

Wyoming; 6,620 km2 (2,556 mi2) in 

Oregon; 4,286 km2 (1,655 mi2) in Utah; 

and 769 km2 (297 mi2) in Washington. 

Approximately 96 percent of the 

suitable habitat (265,703 km2 (102,588 

mi2)) within the NRM DPS occurred in 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 

According to the Carroll model, 

approximately 28 percent of the NRM 

DPS would be ranked as suitable habitat 

(Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27–31). 

The Carroll et al. (2006, pp. 31–34) 

model tended to be more generous in 

identifying suitable wolf habitat under 

current conditions than the Oakleaf (et 

al. 2006, pp. 558–560) model or that our 

field observations indicate is realistic. 

But Carroll’s model provided a valuable 

relative measure across the western U.S. 

upon which comparisons could be 

made. The Carroll model did not 

incorporate livestock density into its 

calculations as the Oakleaf model did 

(Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27–29; Oakleaf 

et al. 2006, p. 556). Thus, the Carroll 

model did not consider those conditions 

where wolf mortality is high and habitat 

unsuitable because of chronic conflict 

with livestock. During the past 20 years, 

wolf packs have been unable to persist 

in areas intensively used for livestock 

production, primarily because of agency 

control of problem wolves and illegal 

killing. 

Furthermore, many of the more 

isolated primary habitat patches that the 

Carroll model predicted as currently 

suitable were predicted to be unsuitable 

by the year 2025, indicating they were 

likely on the lower end of what ranked 

as suitable habitat in that model (Carroll 

et al. 2006, p. 32). Because these types 

of areas were typically too small to 

support breeding pairs and too isolated 

from the core population to receive 

enough dispersing wolves to overcome 

higher rates of human-caused mortality, 

we do not believe they are currently 

suitable habitat based upon our data on 

wolf pack persistence for the past 20 

years (Bangs 1991, p. 9; Bangs et al. 

1998, p. 788; Service et al. 1999–2007, 

Figure 1). 

Despite the substantial differences in 

each model’s analysis area, GIS data 

layers, inputs, and assumptions, both 

models predicted that most suitable 

wolf habitat in the NRM was in 

northwestern Montana, central Idaho, 

and the GYA, which is the area 

currently occupied by the NRM gray 

wolf DPS. Carroll’s model also indicated 

that these three areas had suitable 

habitat between them and it would 

remain relatively intact in the future 

(Carroll et al. 2006, p. 25). However, 

northwest Montana and Idaho were 

much more connected to each other and 

the wolf population in Canada than to 

the GYA (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 554). 

Collectively the three core areas were 

surrounded by large areas of unsuitable 

habitat. 

These models are useful in 

understanding the relative proportions 

and distributions of various habitat 

characteristics and their relationships to 

wolf pack persistence, rather than as 

predictors of absolute acreages or areas 

that can actually be successfully 

occupied by wolf packs. Additionally, 

both models generally support earlier 

Service predictions about wolf habitat 

suitability in the NRM (Service 1980, p. 

9; 1987, p. 7; 1994, p. vii). Because 

theoretical models only define suitable 

habitat as those areas that have 

characteristics with a 50 percent or 

more probability of supporting wolf 

packs, it is impossible to give an exact 

acreage of suitable habitat that can 

actually be successfully occupied. It is 

important to note that these areas also 

have up to a 50 percent chance of not 

supporting wolf packs. 

We considered data on the location of 

suitable wolf habitat from a number of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10537 

sources in developing our estimate of 

currently suitable wolf habitat in the 

NRM DPS. Specifically, we considered 

the recovery areas identified in the 1987 

wolf recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 23), 

the primary analysis areas analyzed in 

the 1994 Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the GYA (63,700 mi2

[24,600 mi2]) and central Idaho (53,600 

mi2 [20,700 mi2]) (Service 1994, p. iv), 

information derived from theoretical 

models by Carroll et al. (2006, p. 25) and 

Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 554), our nearly 

20 years of field experience managing 

wolves in the NRM, and locations of 

persistent wolf packs and breeding pairs 

since recovery has been achieved. 

Collectively, this evidence leads us to 

concur with the Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 

559) model’s predictions that the most 

important habitat attributes for wolf 

pack persistence are forest cover, public 

land, high elk density, and low livestock 

density. Therefore, we believe that 

Oakleaf’s calculations of the amount 

and distribution of suitable wolf habitat 

available for persistent wolf pack 

formation, in the parts of Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming analyzed, 

represent the most reasonable 

prediction of suitable wolf habitat in 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 

The area we conclude that is suitable 

habitat is generally depicted in Oakleaf 

et al. (2006, p. 559). Generally, suitable 

habitat is located in: Western Montana 

west of I–15 and south of I–90; Idaho 

north of Interstate 84; and the northwest 

corner of Wyoming including those 

areas east of State highway 120, along 

the western border of the Wind River 

Reservation, and USDA Forest Service 

(USFS) lands north of Boulder, WY, to 

the Idaho border. A comparison of 

actual wolf pack distribution in 2006 

(Service et al. 2007, Figure 1) and 

Oakleaf et al.’s (2006, p. 559) prediction 

of suitable habitat indicates that nearly 

all suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming is currently occupied and 

areas predicted to be unsuitable remain 

largely unoccupied. 

Although Carroll determined there 

may be some (4%) potentially suitable 

wolf habitat in the NRM DPS outside of 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, we 

believe it is marginally suitable at best 

and is insignificant to wolf population 

recovery because it occurs in small 

isolated fragmented areas. While some 

areas predicted to be unsuitable habitat 

in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have 

been temporarily occupied and used by 

wolves or even packs, we still consider 

them as largely unsuitable habitat. 

Generally, wolf packs in such areas have 

failed to persist long enough to be 

categorized as breeding pairs and 

successfully contribute toward recovery. 

An example of this occurred in 2006 

when wolf packs formed in the Bighorn 

Mountains and near Pinedale, Wyoming 

(Service et al. 2007). Neither area was 

classified as having a breeding pair in 

2006 and by 2007 at least four packs had 

either disappeared from the areas or 

been controlled because of chronic 

conflicts with livestock. Therefore, 

while these areas are routinely used by 

dispersing wolves, we consider such 

areas as containing unsuitable habitat 

and believe that dispersing wolves 

attempting to colonize those areas are 

unlikely to form breeding pairs or 

contribute to population recovery. 

Unoccupied Suitable Habitat—

Habitat suitability modeling indicates 

that the three NRM DPS core recovery 

areas are atypical of other habitats in the 

western U.S. because suitable habitat in 

those core areas occurs in such large 

contiguous blocks (Service 1987, p. 7; 

Larson 2004, p. 49; Carroll et al. 2006, 

p. 35; Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559). It is 

likely that without core refugia areas, 

like YNP or the central Idaho 

wilderness, that provide a steady source 

of dispersing wolves, other potentially 

suitable wolf habitat would not be 

capable of sustaining wolf breeding 

pairs. Some habitat ranked by models as 

suitable adjacent to core refugia may be 

able to support wolf breeding pairs, 

while other habitat farther away from a 

strong source of dispersing wolves may 

not be able to support persistent packs. 

This fact is important when considering 

suitable habitat, as defined by the 

Carroll (et al. 2006, p. 30) and Oakleaf 

(et al. 2006, p. 559) models, because 

wolf populations can persist despite 

very high rates of mortality only if they 

have high rates of immigration (Fuller et 

al. 2003, p. 183). Therefore, model 

predictions regarding habitat suitability 

do not always translate into successful 

wolf occupancy and wolf breeding 

pairs. 

Strips and smaller (less than 2,600 

km2 [1,000 mi2]) patches of theoretically 

suitable habitat (Carroll et al. 2006, p. 

34; Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559) 

(typically, isolated mountain ranges) 

often possess higher mortality risk for 

wolves because they are surrounded by, 

or in close proximity to, unsuitable 

habitat with a high mortality risk. In 

addition, pack territories often form 

along distinct geological features (Mech 

and Boitani 2003, p. 23), such as the 

crest of a rugged mountain range, so 

useable space for wolves in isolated, 

long, narrow mountain ranges may be 

reduced by half or more, and thus are 

often too small to support a wolf 

breeding pair. This phenomenon, in 

which the quality and quantity of 

suitable habitat is diminished because 

of interactions with surrounding lesssuitable habitat, is known as an edge 

effect (Mills 1995, pp. 400–401). Edge 

effects are exacerbated in small habitat 

patches with high perimeter-to-area 

ratios (i.e., those that are long and 

narrow, like isolated mountain ranges) 

and in species with large territories, like 

wolves, because they are more likely to 

encounter surrounding unsuitable 

habitat (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998, 

p. 2128). Because of edge effects, some 

habitat areas outside the core areas may 

rank as suitable in models, but are 

unlikely to actually be successfully 

occupied by persistent wolf packs. For 

these reasons, we believe that the NRM 

DPS will remain anchored by the three 

core recovery areas. These areas will 

continue to provide a constant source of 

dispersing wolves into surrounding 

areas, supplementing wolf packs and 

breeding pairs in adjacent, but less 

secure suitable habitat. 

Habitat Currently Occupied By 

Persistent Wolf Packs—The area in the 

NRM DPS currently occupied by 

persistent wolf packs was calculated by 

drawing a line around the outer points 

of radio-telemetry locations of all 

known wolf pack territories in 2006 

(Service et al. 2007, Figure 1, minus 4 

packs that did not persist). We defined 

the habitat currently occupied by 

persistent wolf packs as that area 

confirmed as being used by resident 

wolves to raise pups or that is used by 

two or more territorial wolves at the end 

of any year (Service 1994, pp. 6:5–6). 

Typically by the end of the year only 50 

percent of packs meet the criteria to be 

classified as breeding pairs. The overall 

distribution of wolf packs has been 

similar since 2000, despite a wolf 

population that has more than doubled 

(Service et al. 2001–2007, Figure 1; 

Bangs et al. in press). Because the States 

have committed to maintain a wolf 

population above the minimum 

recovery levels (achieved in 2002), we 

expect this general distribution will be 

maintained. Habitat occupied by 

persistent wolf packs changed little 

from 2004 (275,533 km2 [106,384 mi2]); 

to 2005 (260,535 km2 [100,593 mi2]); to 

2006 (minus four packs that did not 

persist in 2007—295,116 km2 [113,949 

mi2]) or 2007 (Service et al. 2005, 2006, 

2007, Figure 1; Service et al. 2008 in 

prep., Figure 1). 

We included areas between the three 

core recovery areas as habitat occupied 

by persistent wolf packs, because they 

are important for connectivity between 

areas, even though wolf packs or 

breeding pairs did not persist in certain 

portions of these areas. While models 

ranked some of this habitat as 

unsuitable, these intervening areas are 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10538 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

important to maintaining the 

metapopulation structure, because 

dispersing wolves routinely travel 

through these areas and packs 

occasionally occupy them (Service 

1994, pp. 6:5–6; Bangs 2002, p. 3; 

Jimenez et al. in prep.). This would 

include areas like the Flathead Valley 

and other smaller valleys intensively 

used for agriculture and a few of the 

smaller, isolated mountain ranges 

surrounded by agricultural lands in 

western Montana. 

As of the end of 2006, we estimated 

that persistent wolf packs occupied 

approximately 295,116 km2 (113,949 

mi2) of habitat in parts of Montana 

(136,492 km2 [52,702 mi2]), Idaho 

(118,554 km2 [45,776 mi2]), and 

Wyoming (40,070 km2 [15,472 mi2]) 

(Service et al. 2007, Figure 1—minus 4 

packs that did not persist). Although 

habitat occupied by persistent wolf 

packs includes some prairie (4,488 km2

[1,733 mi2]) and some high desert 

(24,478 km2 [9,451 mi2]), wolf packs 

have not used these habitat types 

successfully (Service et al. 2007, Figure 

1—minus 4 packs that did not persist). 

Since 1986, no persistent wolf pack has 

had a majority of its home range in high 

desert or prairie habitat. Landownership 

in the area occupied by persistent wolf 

packs is 191,473 km2 (73,931 mi2) 

Federal (65 percent); 13,522 km2 (5,225 

mi2) State (4.6 percent); 6,594 km2

(2,546 mi2) Tribal (2.2 percent); and 

80,512 km2 (31,087 mi2) private (27 

percent) (Service et al. 2007, Figure 1—

minus 4 packs that did not persist). 

We determined that the current wolf 

population resembles a three-lobed 

metapopulation and that the overall area 

used by persistent wolf packs in the 

NRM DPS has not significantly 

expanded since the population achieved 

its recovery goal in 2002. Stagnant outer 

distribution patterns for the past 7 years 

indicate there is probably limited 

suitable habitat for the NRM wolf 

population to expand significantly 

beyond its current outer borders. 

Carroll’s model predicted that 165,503 

km2 (63,901 mi2) of suitable habitat (62 

percent) was within the area occupied 

by persistent wolf packs. However, the 

model’s remaining potentially suitable 

habitat (38 percent) was often 

fragmented and in smaller, more 

isolated patches (Carroll et al. 2006, p. 

35) and we have determined that such 

areas do not provide habitat suitable to 

support persistent wolf packs. 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming each 

have committed to manage for at least 

15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves while 

never letting the population fall below 

10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves in 

mid-winter to ensure long-term viability 

of the NRM DPS. The NRM DPS 

occupies nearly 100 percent of the core 

recovery areas recommended in the 

1987 recovery plan (i.e., central Idaho, 

the GYA, and northwestern Montana) 

(Service 1987, p. 23) and nearly 100 

percent of the primary analysis areas 

(the areas where suitable habitat was 

predicted to exist and the wolf 

population would live) analyzed for 

wolf reintroduction in central Idaho and 

the GYA (Service 1994, p. 1:6). This 

pattern will continue, because 

management plans for public lands in 

the NRM DPS will result in forest cover, 

high ungulate densities, low to 

moderate road and livestock densities, 

and other factors critical to maintaining 

suitable wolf habitat. 

Potential Threats Affecting Habitat or 

Range—Establishing a recovered wolf 

population in the NRM DPS did not 

require land-use restrictions or 

curtailment of traditional land-uses, 

because there was enough suitable 

habitat, enough wild ungulates, and 

sufficiently few livestock conflicts to 

allow wolves to recover under existing 

conditions (Bangs et al. 2004, pp. 95–

96). We do not believe that any 

traditional land-use practices in the 

NRM DPS need be modified to maintain 

a recovered NRM DPS into the 

foreseeable future. We do not anticipate 

overall habitat changes in the NRM DPS 

occurring at a magnitude that will 

threaten wolf recovery in the foreseeable 

future, because 71 percent of the 

occupied habitat is in public ownership 

that is managed for multiple uses that 

are complementary with suitable wolf 

habitat and maintenance of viable wolf 

populations (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 542; 

Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 560). 

The GYA and central Idaho core 

recovery areas, 63,714 km2 (24,600 mi2) 

and 53,613 km2 (20,700 mi2), 

respectively, are primarily composed of 

public lands (Service 1994, p. iv) and 

are the largest contiguous blocks of 

suitable habitat within the NRM DPS. 

Public lands in National Parks, 

wilderness, roadless areas, and large 

blocks of contiguous mountainous 

forested habitat are largely unavailable 

or unsuitable for intensive development. 

Central Idaho and the GYA provide 

secure wolf habitat and abundant 

ungulate populations, with about 99,300 

ungulates in the GYA and 241,400 in 

central Idaho (Service 1994, pp. viii–ix). 

These areas are considered secure 

because they are not available for 

development due to their land-use 

classifications, management guidelines 

for other species (e.g., grizzly bears), 

habitat, access, and geological 

characteristics (Service 1993, 1996, 

2007c; Serhveen et al. 2003; USFS 

2006). Thus, they will continue to 

provide suitable habitat for a resident 

wolf population and will be a 

dependable source of dispersing wolves 

to help maintain a viable wolf 

population in the NRM DPS (Service 

1994, p. 1:4). The central Idaho recovery 

area has 24,281 km2 (9,375 mi2) of 

designated wilderness at its core 

(Service 1994, p. 3:85). The core of the 

GYA recovery area includes over 8,094 

km2 (3,125 mi2) in YNP and about 

16,187 km2 (6,250 mi2) of designated 

wilderness (although these areas are less 

useful to wolves, except seasonally, due 

to high elevation) (Service 1994, p. 

3:45). These areas are in public 

ownership and are not useful or 

available for human development at a 

scale that could affect their overall 

suitability for wolves. No foreseeable 

habitat-related threats would prevent 

these areas from supporting a wolf 

population that exceeds recovery levels. 

While the northwestern Montana 

recovery area (basically west of I–15 and 

north of I–90 in Montana and Idaho) 

(84,800 km2 (33,386 mi2)) also has a 

core of protected suitable habitat 

(Glacier National Park, the Bob Marshal 

Wilderness Complex, and extensive 

USFS lands), it is not as high quality or 

as contiguous as that in either central 

Idaho or GYA. The primary reason for 

this is that many ungulates do not 

winter in the Park or Wilderness areas 

because these are higher in elevation. 

Most wolf packs in northwestern 

Montana live west of the Continental 

Divide, where forest habitats are a 

fractured mix of private and public 

lands (Service et al. 1989–2007, Figure 

1). This mix exposes wolves to high 

levels of human-caused mortality, and 

thus this area supports smaller and 

fewer wolf packs. Wolf dispersal into 

northwestern Montana from the more 

stable resident packs in the core 

protected area (largely the North Fork of 

the Flathead River along the eastern 

edge of Glacier National Park and the 

few large river drainages in the Bob 

Marshall Wilderness Complex) and the 

abundant National USFS lands largely 

used for recreation and timber 

production rather than livestock 

production helps to maintain that 

portion of the NRM DPS (Bangs et al. 

1998, p. 786). Wolves also disperse into 

northwestern Montana (and central 

Idaho) from Canada and some packs 

have trans-boundary territories, helping 

to maintain the NRM DPS (Boyd et al. 

1995, p. 136). Conversely, wolf dispersal 

from northwestern Montana into 

Canada, where wolves are much less 

protected, continues to draw some 

wolves into vacant or low-density 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10539 

habitats in Canada where they are 

subject to liberal hunting and agency 

control (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 790). 

Despite mortalities that occur in 

Canada, the trans-boundary movements 

of wolves and wolf packs led to the 

original establishment of wolves in 

Montana, and will continue to have an 

overall positive effect on wolf genetic 

diversity and demography in the 

northwest Montana portion of the NRM 

DPS. 

Sufficient suitable habitat exists so 

that the NRM DPS can be easily 

maintained above recovery levels. The 

most important suitable wolf habitat is 

in public ownership, and the State and 

Federal land-management agencies have 

been managing that habitat for several 

decades and plan to continue to manage 

it so it will continue to provide forage 

and security for high ungulate 

populations, sufficient cover for wolf 

security, moderate and seasonal 

livestock grazing, and low road density. 

Carroll et al. (2003, p. 541; 2006, p. 31) 

predicted future wolf habitat suitability 

under several scenarios through 2025, 

including increased human population 

growth and road development. 

Projections of human population 

growth, associated development, and 

road construction and other threats were 

not predicted to alter wolf habitat 

suitability in the NRM DPS enough to 

cause the wolf population to fall below 

recovery levels in the foreseeable future. 

Modeling also predicted that habitat 

suitability could be increased beyond 

current levels by simply reducing roads 

on public lands (Mech et al. 1988; 86–

87), a process underway in the NRM 

(Service 1993, 1996, 2007; Serhveen et 

al. 2003; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 25; 

Brown 2006, 1–3). 

The recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 

13), the metapopulation structure 

recommended by the 1994 EIS (Service 

1994, pp. 6:74–75), and subsequent 

investigations (Bangs 2002, p. 3) 

recognize the importance of habitat 

connectivity between northwestern 

Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA 

(See Factor E). There appears to be 

enough habitat connectivity between 

occupied wolf habitat in Canada, 

northwestern Montana, and Idaho to 

ensure exchange of sufficient numbers 

of dispersing wolves to maintain 

demographic and genetic diversity in 

the NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 

559; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32; Jimenez 

et al. in prep; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 

19). To date, from radio-telemetry 

monitoring, we have documented 

routine wolf movement between Canada 

and northwestern Montana (Pletscher et 

al. 1991, p. 544; Boyd and Pletscher 

1999, pp. 1095–1096; Sime 2007), 

routine wolf movement between Idaho 

and Montana, including several 

transborder packs, and at least five 

wolves have dispersed into the GYA. 

Because YNP is saturated with resident 

packs, only one individual is known to 

have dispersed into YNP itself (Boyd et 

al. 1995, pp. iii–3–1; Jimenez et al. in 

prep; vonHoldt et al. 2007; Service et al. 

2007, Figure 1; Service 2007b, p. 1). 

Furthermore, because only about 30 

percent of the wolf population has been 

radio-collared, additional dispersal 

(perhaps 3 times that documented or +1 

migrant per year into the GYA) has 

undoubtedly occurred. The documented 

movement of wolves described above 

demonstrates that current habitat 

conditions allow dispersing wolves to 

occasionally travel from one recovery 

area to another. Finally, the Montana 

State wolf management plan (the key 

State regarding connectivity) commits to 

maintaining natural connectivity to 

ensure the genetic integrity of the NRM 

DPS by promoting land uses, such as 

traditional ranching, that enhance 

wildlife habitat and conservation. In 

addition, the Montana (Montana 2003, 

p. 35), Idaho (IDFG 2002, p. 18), and 

Wyoming (WYGF 2007, p. 17) State wolf 

management plans all commit to 

maintaining the meta-population 

structure of the NRM DPS and 

maintaining sufficient genetic diversity, 

by various methods including relocation 

if necessary, to ensure the long-term 

viability of the wolf population of the 

NRM DPS. 

Other Components of Wolf Habitat—

Another important factor in maintaining 

wolf populations is the native ungulate 

population. Wild ungulate prey in these 

three areas are composed mainly of elk, 

white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, 

and (only in the GYA) bison. Bighorn 

sheep, mountain goats, and pronghorn 

antelope also are common but not 

important, at least to date, as wolf prey. 

In total, 100,000–250,000 wild 

ungulates are estimated in each State 

where wolf packs currently exist 

(Service 1994, pp. viii–ix). The States in 

the NRM DPS have managed resident 

ungulate populations for decades and 

maintain them at densities that would 

easily support a recovered wolf 

population; State ungulate management 

plans commit them to do so into the 

future (See Idaho 2007, pp. 1–2; Curtis 

2007, pp. 14–21 as an examples of such 

plans). We know of no foreseeable 

condition that would cause a decline in 

ungulate populations significant enough 

to threaten the recovered status of the 

NRM DPS. 

Cattle and sheep are at least twice as 

numerous as wild ungulates even on 

public lands (Service 1994, pp. viii). 

The only areas that lack livestock and 

that are large enough to support wolf 

packs are YNP, Glacier National Park, 

some adjacent USFS Wilderness Areas, 

and parts of Wilderness Areas in central 

Idaho and northwestern Montana. 

Consequently, every wolf pack outside 

these areas has interacted with some 

livestock, primarily cattle. Livestock 

and livestock carrion are routinely used 

by wolves, but management discourages 

chronic killing of livestock. Conflict 

between wolves and livestock has 

resulted in the annual removal of some 

wolves (Bangs et al. 1995, p. 131; 2004, 

p. 92; 2005, pp. 342–344; Service et al. 

2007, Table 5a). See Factors D and E. 

Human growth and development will 

continue in the NRM, including 

increased development and conversion 

of private low-density rural lands to 

higher density urban developments, 

road development and transportation 

facilities (pipelines and energy 

transmission lines), resource extraction 

(primarily oil and gas, coal, and wind 

development in certain areas), and more 

recreationists on public lands (Robbins 

2007). Despite efforts to minimize 

impacts to wildlife (Brown 2006, pp. 1–

3), some of this development will make 

some areas of the NRM DPS less suitable 

for wolf occupancy. However, none of 

these developments and increased 

human presence will threaten wolf 

recovery or meaningfully impact the 

amount of suitable wolf habitat in the 

NRM in the foreseeable future. Wolves 

are a habitat generalist and one of the 

most adaptable large predators in the 

world, and only became extirpated 

because of deliberate human 

persecution (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 163; 

Boitani 2003, pp. 328–330). Land-use 

restrictions on human development 

were not necessary to recover the wolf 

population. Even active wolf dens can 

be quite resilient to nonlethal 

disturbance by humans (Frame et al. 

2007, p. 316). The vast majority of 

suitable wolf habitat and the current 

wolf population are secure in 

mountainous forested Federal public 

land (National Parks, wilderness, 

roadless areas, and lands managed for 

multiple uses primarily by the USFS but 

some by the Bureau of Land 

Management) that will not be legally 

available for or suitable to intensive 

levels of human development. Nearly all 

oil and gas and coal leases that are being 

developed or are likely to be developed 

in the foreseeable future in the NRM 

DPS are to the south or east of the areas 

suitable for and currently occupied by 

persistent wolf packs (Robbins 2007; 

Environmental Working Group 2007). 

Habitat quality for wolves is based 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10540 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

almost solely on adequate prey and 

security from excessive human-caused 

mortality. 

Most types of intensive human 

development predicted in the future 

will occur in areas that have already 

been extensively modified by human 

activities in the past and are already 

unsuitable wolf habitat (Wyoming 2005, 

Appendix III). Furthermore, such 

development is likely to continue to be 

focused at lower elevations, on private 

lands and in open habitats, and outside 

of currently suitable and currently 

occupied wolf habitat (Robbins 2007). 

Given the nature, location, and very 

small scale of oil and gas and coal 

development within the NRM DPS this 

type of development will not affect wolf 

habitat. Oil and gas and coal reserves 

and leases are not located in the 

mountainous areas that comprise 

suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS 

(Robbins 2007). In addition, State 

regulatory mechanisms in Wyoming, 

Montana, and Idaho, and Federal land 

management practices/guidelines (see a 

USFS Management Plan as an example; 

USFS 2006) in the NRM DPS restrict the 

location and extent of development 

associated with them on public lands so 

we do not believe these activities will 

substantially impact prey or wolf 

security in suitable habitat. 

Development on private land near 

suitable habitat will continue to expose 

wolves to more conflicts and higher risk 

of human-caused mortality. However, 

we believe the rate of conflict is well 

within the wolf population’s biological 

mortality threshold (generally between 

34%–50% annually), especially given 

the large amount of secure habitat that 

will support a recovered wolf 

population and will provide a reliable 

and constant source of dispersing 

wolves (Mech 1989, pp. 387–8). Wolf 

populations persist in many areas of the 

world that are far more developed than 

the NRM currently is or is likely to be 

in the foreseeable future (Boitani 2003, 

pp. 322–23). Habitat connectivity in the 

NRM may be reduced below current 

levels, but wolves have exceptional 

abilities to disperse through even 

unsuitable habitats and such impacts 

would still not threaten the wolf 

population. (See discussions of 

connectivity and genetics in Factor E). 

Current habitat conditions are adequate 

to support a wolf population of 1,500 

individuals, and model predictions 

indicate that development in the NRM 

over the next 25 years is unlikely to 

change habitat in a manner that would 

threaten the NRM DPS (Carroll et al. 

2003, p. 544). The ranges of wolves and 

grizzly bears overlap in many parts of 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, and 

mandatory habitat guidelines on public 

lands for grizzly bear conservation 

guarantee and far exceed necessary 

criteria for maintaining suitable habitat 

for wolves (Service 2007c as one 

example). 

Given the large number of wolves in 

each recovery area of the nearly 

contiguous NRM DPS, natural habitat 

connectivity may be important only as 

it relates to theoretical long-term genetic 

isolation in the GYA without 

management intervention. The wolf 

population and suitable habitat in the 

GYA may become more isolated and 

dispersal into the GYA from central 

Idaho or northwestern Montana less 

common due to future habitat 

development (Carroll et al 2003, p. 543; 

Oakleaf et al. 2006; vonHoldt et al. 

2007). In addition, higher rates of 

human-caused mortality are anticipated 

under State management. Increased 

rates of human-caused mortality may 

result in more social openings 

(vacancies created when individuals die 

or disperse) within wolf packs within 

the core recovery areas of northwestern 

Montana, and central Idaho, creating 

local space for wolves that might 

otherwise disperse into the GYA to 

search out breeding opportunities or to 

join existing packs. Higher mortality 

rates will also be more likely to remove 

individuals that might disperse into the 

outer edges of the GYA because 

mortality rates are already highest along 

the edges of the core recovery areas 

(Smith 2007a). In contrast, increased 

rates of human-caused mortality in the 

GYA might create more social openings 

in existing packs that could be filled by 

wolves dispersing from northwestern 

Montana and central Idaho. 

We believe the former scenario is 

more likely than the latter and that the 

cumulative result of increased humancaused mortality will likely be more 

genetic isolation of wolves in the GYA. 

However, some level of natural 

connectivity will continue because of 

the large amount of public land and low 

human density between the GYA and 

central Idaho and the ability of wolves 

to disperse rapidly over long distances 

through otherwise unsuitable habitat 

(Carroll 2006, p. 376). Also the GYA 

will contain more wolves than just those 

in YNP, including 7 or more breeding 

pairs to be maintained in Wyoming 

outside of YNP, wolves in southwestern 

Montana (73 wolves in 13 packs 

comprising 5 breeding pairs in 2006), 

and southeastern Idaho (6 wolves in 1 

breeding pair in 2006). Furthermore, 

each State has committed to maintain 

genetic diversity at a level that does not 

threaten wolf population viability in the 

GYA (Idaho 2002, p.18; Montana 2003, 

p.27; WGFD 2007, p.17), which 

completely addresses this theoretical 

issue. Regardless, wolves in the GYA 

portion of the NRM DPS would still not 

become threatened by a potential worsecase decrease in genetic diversity in the 

next 100 years because other wolf 

populations have persisted for decades 

or even centuries with even lower 

genetic diversity (Boitani 2003). 

We recognize the theoretical concerns 

over the future potential impact of 

natural habitat connectivity and genetic 

isolation in the GYA, and possibly other 

recovery areas. The States will be 

required to evaluate the wolf population 

status annually for the first 5 years after 

delisting. If this analysis indicates the 

wolf population might become 

threatened under a continuation of that 

same State management strategy in the 

foreseeable future, the States would 

either adjust their management 

strategies to resolve those issues, or the 

process to evaluate listing all or parts of 

the NRM DPS under the Act would 

begin. 

While lone wolves will continue to 

occasionally disperse outside of the 

NRM DPS core recovery area, it is 

unlikely that many breeding pairs will 

persist outside of this area, except 

possibly in parts of eastern Washington 

and northeastern Oregon that abut the 

large Idaho wolf population and where 

some suitable habitat exists. However, 

we anticipate the establishment of 

breeding pairs in that portion of the 

NRM DPS will be sporadic because 

suitable habitat is limited and 

fragmented. The combination of limited 

suitable habitat and high rates of 

human-caused mortality that will be 

associated with predatory animal status 

in eastern and southern Wyoming will 

further reduce the already extremely 

low probability of dispersing wolves 

successfully recolonizing Colorado, 

Utah, South Dakota, or Nebraska. 

Likewise, increased rates of humancaused mortality in Idaho and Montana 

will likely further inhibit the already 

low potential for successful wolf 

recolonization of Nevada and the 

Dakotas, respectively. However, while 

any dispersing wolves in these areas 

would remain listed as endangered, 

should breeding pairs become 

established, they will not affect the 

viability of the NRM DPS. Any suitable 

habitat adjacent to the NRM DPS is too 

fragmented and too far from the NRM 

DPS core recovery areas to provide 

dispersing wolves back into it to 

supplement it either genetically or 

demographically. 

The large amount of public lands that 

cannot or will not be developed within 

the core recovery areas within the NRM 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10541 

DPS assures that adequate suitable 

habitat for wolves will exist into the 

foreseeable future. Even though some 

habitat degradation will occur in the 

smaller areas of suitable habitat between 

the core recovery areas, the quantity and 

quality of habitat that will remain will 

be sufficient to maintain some level of 

natural connectivity into the foreseeable 

future (Carroll et al. 2003 p.32). 

However, the GYA is the most isolated 

area, and development around its edges 

is likely to continue in the future. The 

level of development predicted in this 

area is not expected to threaten wolves 

because habitat in protected public 

lands would remain secure. 

Human populations in the GYA, and 

the rest of the U.S., are expected to 

increase (Carroll 2006). In the six GYA 

Wyoming counties where wolf breeding 

pairs will be maintained, the human 

population is projected to increase by 

roughly 15,000 residents between 2000 

and 2020 (from 105,215 in 2000 to 

120,771 by 2020) (Wyoming Department 

of Administration and Information 

Economic Analysis Division 2005). The 

Montana GYA counties are expected to 

increase by roughly 35,000 people 

during this same time (from 120,934 in 

2000 to 154,800 by 2020) (NPA Data 

Services 2002). We anticipate similar 

levels of population growth in the 

remaining portions of the NRM DPS 

given that the West, as a region, is 

projected to increase at rates faster than 

any other region of the U.S. (U.S. 

Census Bureau Population Division 

2005). 

Increasing human populations do not 

necessarily lead to declining predator 

populations. Mortality can be limited 

with adequate management programs 

(Linnell et al. 2001, p. 348), research 

and monitoring, and outreach and 

education about living with wildlife. In 

addition, conservation groups, on a 

willing seller basis, have been retiring 

Federal grazing allotments in areas with 

chronic large-predator/livestock conflict 

to benefit large carnivore conservation 

efforts (Fischer 2007). The States, of 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, Federal 

land management agencies, Tribes, and 

private ranch lands in Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming already conserve habitat 

for large populations of mountain lions, 

black bears, and grizzly bears and wolf 

prey such as elk and deer. 

The Service has no need or authority 

to limit future human population 

growth for wolf conservation in the 

NRM DPS. The management plans of 

appropriate land management agencies 

and governments manage public lands 

to limit resource impacts from human 

use of those lands, and these plans are 

more than adequate to support a 

recovered wolf population (see USDA 

2006 as one example). Habitat 

suitability for wolves will change over 

time with human development, 

activities, and attitudes, but not to the 

extent that it is likely to threaten wolf 

recovery. 

Summary of Threats to Wolf 

Habitat—We do not foresee that impacts 

to suitable and potentially suitable 

habitat will occur at levels that will 

significantly affect wolf numbers or 

distribution or affect population 

recovery and long-term viability in the 

NRM DPS. Suitable habitat, occupied by 

persistent wolf packs, is secured by core 

recovery areas in northwestern 

Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA, 

including northwestern Wyoming. 

These areas include Glacier National 

Park, Grand Teton National Park, YNP, 

numerous USFS Wilderness Areas, and 

other State and Federal public lands. 

These areas will continue to be managed 

for high ungulate densities, moderate 

rates of seasonal livestock grazing, 

moderate-to-low road densities 

associated with abundant native prey, 

low potential for livestock conflicts, and 

security from excessive unregulated 

human-caused mortality. The core 

recovery areas also are within proximity 

to one another and have enough public 

land between them to ensure enough 

natural connectivity for wolf dispersal 

into the foreseeable future. The possible 

exception is the GYA, where some 

believe human-induced genetic 

connectivity might be required within 

100 years (vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 1). 

We do not share this view and explain 

why in detail under Factor E. 

No significant threats to the suitable 

habitat in Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming are known to exist in the 

foreseeable future. These areas currently 

support nearly 1,500 wolves and over 

100 breeding pairs and have long been 

recognized as the most likely areas to 

successfully support 30 or more 

breeding pairs of wolves, comprising 

300 or more individuals in a 

metapopulation with some dispersal 

between subpopulations (Service 1980, 

pp. 1–4; 1987, p. 23; 1994, pp. 6, 74–

75; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006). 

Unsuitable habitat and small fragmented 

areas of suitable habitat away from these 

core recovery areas largely represent 

geographic locations where wolf 

breeding pairs are likely to persist only 

in low numbers, if at all. Although such 

areas may historically have contained 

suitable habitat (and may contribute to 

a healthy wolf population in the NRM 

DPS by facilitating dispersal between 

core areas), wolf packs in these areas are 

not important or necessary for 

maintaining a viable, self-sustaining, 

and evolving (Geffen et al. 2004, p. 

2481) representative wolf population in 

the NRM DPS into the foreseeable 

future. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

As detailed below, overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes has not been a 

significant threat to the NRM DPS. 

Mortality rates caused by commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes are not anticipated to exceed 

sustainable levels following delisting. 

These activities have not been a threat 

to the viability of the wolves in the past, 

and we have no reason to believe that 

they would become a threat to the 

viability of the wolves in the foreseeable 

future. 

Since their listing under the Act, no 

gray wolves have been deliberately and 

legally killed or removed from the wild 

in the NRM for commercial, recreational 

(hunting, trapping), or educational 

purposes. In the NRM, about 3 percent 

of the wolves captured for scientific 

research, nonlethal control, and 

monitoring have been accidentally 

killed (Bangs et al. in press). Some 

wolves may have been illegally killed 

for commercial use of the pelts and 

other parts, but we believe illegal 

commercial trafficking in wolf pelts or 

wolf parts is rare. Illegal capture of 

wolves for commercial breeding 

purposes also is possible, but we have 

no evidence that it occurs in the NRM. 

We believe the prohibition against 

‘‘take’’ provided for by Section 9 of the 

Act has discouraged and minimized the 

illegal killing of wolves for commercial 

or recreational purposes. Although 

Federal penalties under Section 11 of 

the Act will not apply once delisting is 

finalized, other Federal laws will still 

protect wildlife in National Parks and 

on other Federal lands (Service 1994, 

pp. 1:5–9). In addition, the States and 

Tribes have similar laws and regulations 

that protect game or trophy animals 

from overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, and educational 

purposes (See Factor D for a more 

detailed discussion of this issue). We 

believe these laws will continue to 

provide a strong deterrent to illegal 

killing of wolves by the public, as they 

have been effective in State-led 

conservation programs for other resident 

wildlife such as black bears, mountain 

lions, elk, and deer. In addition, the 

State fish and game agencies, National 

Parks, other Federal agencies, and most 

Tribes have well-distributed 

experienced professional law 

enforcement officers to help enforce 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10542 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

State, Federal, and Tribal wildlife 

regulations (See Factor D). 

Scientific Research and Monitoring—

From 1984 to 2007, the Service and our 

cooperating partners captured over 940 

NRM wolves for monitoring, nonlethal 

control, and research purposes with 23 

accidental deaths. With delisting of gray 

wolves in the NRM DPS, the States, 

National Parks, and Tribes will continue 

to capture and radio-collar wolves in the 

NRM DPS for monitoring and research 

purposes in accordance with their State 

wolf management plans (See ‘‘Factor D’’

and ‘‘Post-Delisting Monitoring’’

sections). We expect that capture-caused 

mortality by Federal, State, and Tribal 

agencies, and universities conducting 

wolf monitoring, nonlethal control, and 

research will remain below 3 percent of 

the wolves captured, and will be an 

insignificant source of mortality to the 

wolf population. 

Education—We are unaware of any 

wolves that have been removed from the 

wild for solely educational purposes in 

recent years. Wolves that are used for 

such purposes are typically privatelyheld captive-reared offspring of wolves 

that were already in captivity for other 

reasons and are not protected by the 

Act. However, States may get requests to 

place wolves that would otherwise be 

euthanized in captivity for research or 

educational purposes. Such requests 

have been, and will continue to be, rare; 

would be closely regulated by the State 

wildlife management agencies through 

the requirement for State permits for 

protected species; and would not 

substantially increase human-caused 

wolf mortality rates. 

Commercial and Recreational Uses—

In Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, any 

legal take after delisting (primarily 

hunting and trapping) will be regulated 

by State or Tribal law so that such take 

would not threaten each State’s share of 

the NRM DPS (See Factor D). The 

exception would be in Wyoming where 

there will be no regulation of wolf take 

in the area where wolves are designated 

as predatory animals. However, we have 

determined that the area of Wyoming 

where wolves are designated as 

predatory animals is outside of the GYA 

and is not important to maintaining 

recovery in the Wyoming portion of the 

NRM wolf population (See discussion in 

Boundaries of the DPS). 

Because wolves are highly territorial, 

wolf populations in saturated habitat 

naturally limit further population 

increases through wolf-to-wolf conflict 

or dispersal to unoccupied habitat. Wolf 

populations can maintain themselves 

despite sustained human-caused 

mortality rates of 30 to 50 percent per 

year (Keith 1983; Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 

182–184). In addition, human-caused 

mortality can take the place of up to 70 

percent of wolf mortality that would 

have occurred naturally [e.g., wolf 

population/social pressures were 

relieved because a wolf was killed in a 

vehicle collision that would have 

otherwise been killed by other wolves] 

(Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). Wolf pups 

can be successfully raised by other pack 

members and breeding individuals can 

be quickly replaced by other wolves 

(Brainerd et al. 2008, p. 1). Collectively, 

these factors mean that wolf populations 

are quite resilient to human-caused 

mortality if it can be regulated. 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming will 

regulate human-caused mortality to 

manipulate wolf distribution and 

overall population size to help reduce 

conflicts with livestock and, in some 

cases, human hunting of big game, just 

as they do for other resident species of 

wildlife. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and 

some Tribes in those States will allow 

regulated public harvest of surplus 

wolves in the NRM DPS for commercial 

and recreational purposes by regulated 

private and guided hunting and 

trapping. Such take and any commercial 

use of wolf pelts or other parts will be 

regulated by State or Tribal law (see 

discussion of State laws and plans 

under Factor D). The regulated take of 

those wolves will not affect wolf 

population recovery or viability in the 

NRM DPS because Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming will allow such take only for 

wolves that are surplus to achieving the 

State’s commitment to maintaining a 

recovered population. Take of wolves in 

eastern and southern Wyoming will be 

unregulated. However, those areas of 

Wyoming and any wolves that may be 

present are not necessary to sustain a 

recovered wolf population in the NRM 

DPS because they would be so few, 

scattered, and temporary. 

State laws in Washington, Oregon, 

and Utah do not currently allow public 

take of wolves for recreational or 

commercial purposes. Regulated 

hunting and trapping are traditional and 

effective wildlife management tools that 

may be applied to help achieve State 

and Tribal wolf management objectives 

as needed and may be authorized at 

some point in the future. However, any 

wolf breeding pairs in those portions of 

the NRM DPS would not be necessary 

to sustain wolf population recovery in 

the NRM DPS and no threats, including 

high rates of human-caused mortality, in 

these States would affect the wolf 

population in Montana, Idaho, or 

Wyoming. Wolf packs that formed 

outside the core recovery areas would 

be limited in number, scattered, 

temporary, experience high mortality 

rates, and consequently would not 

persist long enough to produce many 

dispersal-aged individuals. Wolves 

typically do not disperse from their 

natal pack until they are at least 1.5 

years old so these types of packs would 

produce very few dispersers that could 

supplement the wolf population in the 

core recovery areas. 

In summary, the States have 

organizations and regulatory and 

enforcement systems in place to limit 

human-caused mortality of wolves in all 

areas of the NRM DPS where regulated 

take will be important to maintaining 

the recovered wolf population into the 

foreseeable future. The Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming State plans commit these 

States to regulate all take of wolves in 

their part of the NRM DPS. These plans 

include regulation of take for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, and 

educational purposes. The States will 

incorporate any Tribal harvest as part of 

the overall level of allowable take to 

ensure that the wolf population does not 

fall below the NRM DPS’s numerical 

and distributional recovery levels (Idaho 

2007, p. 16–17). The States and Tribes 

have humane and professional animal 

handling protocols and trained 

personnel that will ensure that 

population monitoring and research 

results in few unintentional mortalities. 

Furthermore, the States’ permitting 

process for captive wildlife and animal 

care will ensure that few, if any, wolves 

will be removed from the wild solely for 

educational purposes (Idaho 2002, 2007; 

Montana 2003; Wyoming 2007). We 

conclude that potential wolf take 

resulting from commercial, scientific, or 

educational purposes in the NRM DPS 

will be regulated so that it will not 

threaten wolf population recovery for 

the foreseeable future. 

C. Disease or Predation 

As discussed in detail below, a wide 

range of diseases may affect wolves in 

the NRM DPS. However, no diseases or 

parasites, even in combination, are of 

such magnitude that the population is 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

in the foreseeable future. Similarly, 

predation does not pose a significant 

threat to the NRM DPS. The rates of 

mortality caused by disease and 

predation are well within acceptable 

limits, and we do not expect those rates 

to change appreciably if the NRM DPS 

is delisted. Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming State plans commit to 

monitoring wolf health to ensure any 

new impacts caused by diseases or 

parasites are quickly detected. Natural 

predation on wolves is rare, but 

predation by humans can be a 

significant issue if not regulated. More 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10543 

information on disease and predation 

(including by humans) is provided 

below. 

Disease—Wolves in the NRM DPS are 

exposed to a wide variety of diseases 

and parasites that are common 

throughout North America. Many 

diseases (viruses and bacteria, many 

protozoa and fungi) and parasites 

(helminthes and arthropods) have been 

reported for the gray wolf, and several 

of them have had significant, but 

temporary impacts during wolf recovery 

in the 48 conterminous States (Brand et 

al. 1995, p. 428; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–

214). The EIS on gray wolf 

reintroduction identified disease impact 

as an issue, but did not evaluate it 

further, as it appeared to be insignificant 

(Service 1994, pp. 1:20–21). 

Infectious disease induced by 

parasitic organisms is a normal factor in 

the life of wild animals, and the typical 

wild animal hosts a broad multi-species 

community of potentially harmful 

parasitic organisms (Wobeser 2002, p. 

160). We fully anticipate that these 

diseases and parasites will follow the 

same pattern seen in other areas of 

North America (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 

428–429; Bailey et al. 1995, p. 445; 

Johnson 1995a, b; Kreeger 2003, pp. 

202–204; Atkinson 2006, pp. 1–7; Smith 

and Almberg 2007, pp. 17–19) and will 

not significantly threaten wolf 

population viability. Nevertheless, 

because these diseases and parasites, 

and perhaps others, have the potential 

to impact wolf population distribution 

and demographics, careful monitoring 

(as per the State wolf management 

plans) will track such events (Atkinson 

2006, pp. 1–7). Should such an outbreak 

occur, human-caused mortality would 

be regulated by the States over an 

appropriate area and time period to 

ensure wolf population numbers in the 

NRM DPS are maintained above 

recovery levels in those portions of the 

NRM DPS. 

Canine parvovirus (CPV) infects 

wolves, domestic dogs (Canis 

familiaris), foxes, coyotes, skunks 

(Mephitis mephitis), and raccoons 

(Procyon lotor). The population impacts 

of CPV occur via diarrhea-induced 

dehydration leading to abnormally high 

pup mortality (Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources 1999, p. 61). Clinical 

CPV is characterized by severe 

hemorrhagic diarrhea and vomiting; 

debility and subsequent mortality is a 

result of dehydration, electrolyte 

imbalances, and shock. The CPV has 

been detected in nearly every wolf 

population in North America including 

Alaska (Bailey et al. 1995, p. 441; Brand 

et al. 1995, p. 421; Kreeger 2003, pp. 

210–211; Johnson et al. 1994), and 

exposure in wolves is thought to be 

almost universal. Currently, nearly 100 

percent of the wolves handled by 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

(MFWP) (Atkinson 2006) and YNP 

(Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18) had 

blood antibodies indicating nonlethal 

exposure to CPV. The CPV contributed 

to low pup survival in the northern 

range of YNP in 1999, and was 

suspected to have done so again in 2005 

(Smith et al. 2006, p. 244). However, 

monitoring data show 2006 and 2007 

pup production and survival in YNP 

returned to normal levels (Smith and 

Almberg 2007, pp. 18–19). The impact 

of such disease outbreaks to the overall 

NRM DPS of the gray wolf has been 

localized and temporary, as has been 

documented elsewhere (Bailey et al. 

1995, p. 441; Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; 

Kreeger 2003, pp. 210–211). 

Canine distemper (CD) is an acute, 

fever-causing disease of carnivores 

caused by a virus (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). 

It is common in domestic dogs and 

some wild canids, such as coyotes and 

foxes in the NRM (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). 

The prevalence of antibodies to this 

disease in samples of wolf blood in 

North American wolves is about 17 

percent (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). Nearly 

85 percent of Montana wolf blood 

samples analyzed in 2005 indicated 

nonlethal exposure to CD (Atkinson 

2006). Similar results were found in 

YNP (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18). 

Mortality in wolves has been 

documented in Canada (Carbyn 1982, p. 

109), Alaska (Peterson et al. 1984, p. 31; 

Bailey et al. 1995, p. 441), and in a 

single Wisconsin pup (Wydeven and 

Wiedenhoeft 2003, p. 7). Canine 

distemper is not a major mortality factor 

in wolves, despite high exposure to the 

virus, because affected wolf populations 

demonstrate good recruitment (Brand et 

al. 1995, pp. 420–421). Mortality from 

CD has been confirmed only once in 

gray wolves of the NRM DPS despite 

their high exposure to it, but we suspect 

it contributed to the high pup mortality 

documented in the northern GYA in 

spring 2005. 

Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete 

bacterium, is spread primarily by deer 

ticks (Ixodes dammini). Host species 

include humans, horses (Equus 

caballus), dogs, white-tailed deer, mule 

deer, elk, white-footed mice 

(Peromyscus leucopus), eastern 

chipmunks (Tamias striatus), coyotes, 

and wolves. In WGL populations, it 

does not appear to cause adult 

mortality, but might be suppressing 

population growth by decreasing wolf 

pup survival (Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources 1999, p. 61). Lyme 

disease has not been reported from 

wolves beyond the Great Lakes region 

(Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources 1999, p. 61). 

Mange is caused by a mite (Sarcoptes 

scabeii) that infests the skin. The 

irritation caused by feeding and 

burrowing mites results in intense 

itching, resulting in scratching and 

severe fur loss, which can lead to 

mortality from exposure during winter 

weather or secondary infections 

(Kreeger 2003, pp. 207–208). Advanced 

mange can involve the entire body and 

can cause emaciation, decreased 

wariness, staggering, and death (Kreeger 

2003, p. 207). In a long-term Alberta 

wolf study, higher wolf densities were 

correlated with increased incidence of 

mange, and pup survival decreased as 

the incidence of mange increased 

(Brand et al. 1995, pp. 427–428). Mange 

has been shown to temporarily affect 

wolf population growth rates and 

perhaps wolf distribution (Kreeger 2003, 

p. 208). 

Mange has been detected in, and 

caused mortality to, wolves in the NRM 

DPS, but almost exclusively in the GYA, 

and primarily east of the Continental 

Divide (Jimenez et al. 2007a; Atkinson 

2006, p. 5; Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 

19). Those wolves likely contracted 

mange from coyotes or fox whose 

populations experience occasional 

outbreaks. In Montana, 3 percent of 38 

packs in 2003, 10 percent of 40 packs 

in 2004, 24 percent of 46 packs in 2005, 

10 percent of 60 packs in 2006, and 4 

percent of 71 packs in 2007 showed 

evidence of mange, although not all 

members of every pack appeared 

infested. In Wyoming, including YNP, 

mange affected 5 percent of 22 packs in 

2002, 8 percent of 26 packs in 2003, 12 

percent of 26 packs in 2004, 3 percent 

of 29 packs in 2005, 9 percent of 40 

packs in 2006, and 15 percent of 33 

packs in 2007. Mange has not been 

confirmed in wolves in Idaho (Jimenez 

et al. 2007a). 

In packs with the most severe 

infestations, pup survival appeared low, 

and some adults died (Jimenez et al. 

2007a). In addition, we euthanized 

approximately 4 wolves with severe 

mange for humane reasons and because 

of their abnormal behavior. We predict 

that mange in the NRM DPS will act as 

it has in other parts of North America 

(Brand et al. 1995, pp. 427–428; Kreeger 

2003, pp. 207–208) and not threaten 

wolf population viability. Evidence 

suggests that wolves in the NRM DPS 

will not be infested on a chronic 

population-wide level given the recent 

response of wolves that naturally 

overcame a mange infestation (Jimenez 

et al. 2007a). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10544 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Dog-biting lice (Trichodectes canis) 

commonly feed on domestic dogs, but 

can infest coyotes and wolves (Schwartz 

et al. 1983, p. 372; Mech et al. 1985, p. 

404). The lice can attain severe 

infestations, particularly in pups. The 

worst infestations can result in severe 

scratching, irritated and raw skin, 

substantial hair loss particularly in the 

groin, and poor condition. While no 

wolf mortality has been confirmed, 

death from exposure and/or secondary 

infection following self-inflicted trauma, 

caused by inflammation and itching, 

appears possible. Dog-biting lice were 

first confirmed in wolves in the NRM 

DPS on two pups in the Battlefield pack 

in the Big Hole Valley of southwestern 

Montana in 2005. In 2006, 3 pups the 

Battlefield pack were infested. In 2006 

and 2007 lice were documented on 9 

wolves from 8 packs in south-central 

Idaho. None of these infestations were 

severe (Service et al. 2006, p. 15; 

Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Jimenez et al. 

2007b). Based on epizootics of lice 

infestations reported in other areas in 

North America, lice may contribute to 

higher morbidity in individual wolves, 

but will not be a significant cause of 

mortality that would threaten the 

regional wolf population (Kreeger 2003, 

p. 208). The source of the lice 

infestation is unknown, but was likely 

domestic dogs. 

Rabies, canine heartworm (Dirofilaria 

immitus), blastomycosis, brucellosis, 

neosporsis, leptospirosis, bovine 

tuberculosis, canine coronavirus, viral 

papillomatosis, hookworm, tapeworm, 

coccidiosis, and canine adenovirus/ 

hepatitis have all been documented in 

wild gray wolves, but their impacts on 

future wild wolf populations are not 

likely to be significant (Brand et al. 

1995, pp. 419–429; Johnson 1995a, pp. 

5–73, 1995b, pp. 5–49; Mech and Kurtz 

1999, p. 305; Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources 1999, p. 61; Kreeger 

2003, pp. 202–214; Atkinson 2006, p. 1–

7). Canid rabies caused local population 

declines in Alaska (Ballard and 

Krausman 1997, p. 242) and may 

temporarily limit population growth or 

distribution where another species, such 

as arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus), act as 

a reservoir for the disease. Range 

expansion could provide new avenues 

for exposure to several of these diseases, 

especially canine heartworm, rabies, 

bovine tuberculosis, and possibly new 

diseases such as chronic wasting disease 

and West Nile virus, further 

emphasizing the need for vigilant 

disease monitoring programs. 

Because several of the diseases and 

parasites are known to be spread by 

wolf-to-wolf contact, their incidence 

may increase if wolf densities increase. 

However, because wolf densities are 

already high (Service et al. 2007, Table 

1 & Figure 1), wolf-to-wolf contacts will 

not likely lead to a continuing increase 

in disease prevalence. The wolves’

exposure to these types of organisms 

may be most common outside of the 

core population areas, where domestic 

dogs are most common, and lowest in 

the core population areas because 

wolves tend to flow out of, not into, 

saturated habitats. Despite this dynamic, 

we assume that most wolves in the NRM 

DPS will continue to have exposure to 

most diseases and parasites in the 

system. Diseases or parasites have not 

been a significant threat to wolf 

population recovery in the NRM DPS to 

date, and we have no reason to believe 

that they will become a significant 

threat to their viability in the 

foreseeable future. 

In terms of future monitoring, each 

State has committed to monitor the gray 

wolf NRM DPS for significant disease 

and parasite problems (Atkinson 2006, 

p. 1; Idaho 2007, pp. 36–7; Wyoming 

2007, p. 7, 39). These State wildlife 

health programs often cooperate with 

Federal agencies and universities and 

usually have both reactive and proactive 

wildlife health monitoring protocols. 

Reactive strategies consist of periodic 

intensive investigations after disease or 

parasite problems have been detected 

through routine management practices, 

such as pelt examination, reports from 

hunters, research projects, or population 

monitoring. Proactive strategies often 

involve ongoing routine investigation of 

wildlife health information through 

collection and analysis of blood and 

tissue samples from all or a sub-sample 

of wildlife carcasses or live animals that 

are handled. We do not believe that 

diseases or changes in disease 

monitoring by the States or Tribes will 

threaten wolf population recovery in the 

NRM DPS. 

Natural Predation—No wild animals 

routinely prey on gray wolves (Ballard 

et al. 2003, pp. 259–260). Occasionally 

wolves have been killed by large prey 

such as elk, deer, bison, and moose 

(Mech and Nelson 1989, p. 207; Mech 

and Peterson 2003, p. 134; Smith et al. 

2006, p. 247), but those instances are 

few. Since the 1980s, we know of 

wolves in the NRM have died from 

wounds they received while attacking 

prey on about a dozen occasions (Smith 

et al. 2006, p. 247). That level of 

mortality could not significantly affect 

wolf population viability or stability. 

Since wolves in the NRM DPS have 

been monitored, only three wolves have 

been confirmed killed by other large 

predators. Two adults were killed by 

mountain lions, and one pup was killed 

by a grizzly bear (Jimenez et al. 2006). 

Wolves in the NRM DPS inhabit the 

same areas as mountain lions, grizzly 

bears, and black bears, but conflicts 

rarely result in the death of either 

species. Wolves evolved with other 

large predators, and no other large 

predators in North America, except 

humans, have the potential to 

significantly impact wolf populations. 

Other wolves are the largest cause of 

natural predation among wolves. 

Numerous mortalities have resulted 

from territorial conflicts between 

wolves, and about 7 percent of wolf 

deaths are caused by territorial conflict 

in the NRM gray wolf DPS (Smith 

2007a). Wherever wolf packs occur, 

including the NRM, some low level of 

wolf mortality will result from territorial 

conflict. Wolf populations tend to 

regulate their own density; 

consequently, territorial conflict is 

highest in saturated habitats. That cause 

of mortality is infrequent and does not 

result in a level of mortality that would 

significantly affect a wolf population’s 

viability in the NRM (Smith 2007a). 

Human-caused Predation—Wolves 

are susceptible to human-caused 

mortality, especially in open habitats 

such as those that occur in the western 

U.S. (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93). An active 

eradication program is the sole reason 

that wolves were extirpated from the 

NRM (Weaver 1978, p. i). Humans kill 

wolves for a number of reasons. In all 

locations where people, livestock, and 

wolves coexist, some wolves are killed 

to resolve conflicts with livestock (Fritts 

et al. 2003, p. 310; Woodroffe et al. 

2005, pp. 86–107, 345–7). Occasionally, 

wolf killings are accidental (e.g., wolves 

are hit by vehicles, mistaken for coyotes 

and shot, or caught in traps set for other 

animals) (Bangs et al. 2005, p. 346), and 

some are reported to State, Tribal, and 

Federal authorities. 

However, many wolf killings are 

intentional, illegal, and are never 

reported to authorities. Wolves may 

become unwary of people or human 

activity, and that can make them 

vulnerable to human-caused mortality 

(Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 300–302). 

In the NRM DPS, mountain topography 

concentrates both wolf and human 

activity in valley bottoms (Boyd and 

Pletscher 1999, p. 1105), especially in 

winter, which increases wolf exposure 

to human-caused mortality. The number 

of illegal killings is difficult to estimate 

and impossible to accurately determine 

because they generally occur in areas 

with few witnesses. Often the evidence 

has decayed by the time the wolf’s 

carcass is discovered or the evidence is 

destroyed or concealed by the 

perpetrators. While human-caused 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10545 

mortality, including illegal killing, has 

not prevented population recovery, it 

has affected NRM wolf distribution 

(Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93). In the past 20 

years and despite repeated dispersal of 

lone wolves into such areas, no wolf 

packs have successfully established and 

persisted solely in open prairie or high 

desert habitats that are used for 

intensive agriculture production (Bangs 

et al. 1998, p. 788; Service et al. 1989–

2007, Figure 1). 

As part of the interagency wolf 

monitoring program and various 

research projects, about 30 percent of 

the wolves in the NRM DPS have been 

monitored with radio telemetry since 

the 1980s (Smith 2007a). The annual 

survival rate of mature wolves in 

northwestern Montana and adjacent 

Canada from 1984 through 1995 was 80 

percent (Pletscher et al. 1997, p. 459); 84 

percent for resident wolves and 66 

percent for dispersers. That study found 

84 percent of wolf mortality to be 

human-caused. Bangs et al. (1998, p. 

790) found similar statistics, with 

humans causing most of the wolf 

mortality in the NRM DPS. Radiocollared wolves in the largest blocks of 

remote habitat without livestock, such 

as central Idaho or YNP, had annual 

survival rates around 80 percent (Smith 

et al., 2006 p. 245). Wolves outside of 

large remote areas had survival rates as 

low as 54 percent in some years (Smith 

et al. 2006, p. 245). This percentage is 

at the lower end of adult wolf survival 

rates that an isolated population can 

sustain (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 185). 

These survival rates may be biased. 

Wolves are more likely to be radiocollared if they are likely to come into 

conflict with people, so the proportion 

of mortality caused by agency 

depredation control actions could be 

overestimated by radio-telemetry data. 

People who illegally kill wolves may 

destroy the radio-collar, so the 

proportion of illegal mortality could be 

underestimated. Wolves that disperse 

long distances are much more difficult 

to locate than resident wolves, so their 

survival may be even lower than 

telemetry data indicate. The high 

proportion of wolves radio-collared in 

National Parks for research purposes 

can result in underestimating the overall 

rate of human-caused mortality in the 

NRM DPS. However, wolf numbers have 

increased at rate of about 24% annually 

in the face of ongoing levels of humancaused mortality. 

A preliminary analysis of the survival 

data among NRM DPS radio-collared 

wolves (n=940) (Hensey & Fuller 1983; 

Smith 2007a) from 1984 through 2006 

indicates that about 26 percent of adultsized wolves die every year, so annual 

adult survival averages about 74 

percent, which typically allows wolf 

population growth (Keith 1983, p. 66; 

Fuller et al. 2003, p. 182). Humans 

caused just over 75 percent of all known 

radio-collared wolf deaths (Smith 

2007a). This type of analysis does not 

estimate the cause or rate of survival 

among pups younger than 7 months of 

age, because they are too small to radiocollar. Agency control of problem 

wolves and illegal killing are the two 

largest causes of wolf death; combined 

these causes remove nearly 20 percent 

of the population annually and are 

responsible for a majority of all known 

wolf deaths (Smith et al. 2006, p. 245). 

Wolf mortality from agency control of 

problem wolves (which includes legal 

take by private individuals under 

defense of property regulations in rules 

promulgated under section 10(j) of the 

Act) is estimated to remove around 10 

percent of adult radio-collared wolves 

annually. From 1995 through 2007, 60 

wolves were legally killed by private 

citizens under Federal defense of 

property regulations (50 CFR 17.84(i) 

and (n)) that are similar to Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming State laws for 

resident game animals that would take 

effect and direct take of problem wolves 

by both the public and agencies if 

wolves were delisted. Agency control 

removed over 672 problem wolves from 

1987 through 2007 (Service et al. 2007, 

Table 4; Service 2007a), indicating that 

private citizen take (about 8 percent) 

under State defense of property laws 

would not significantly increase the 

overall rate of problem wolf removal 

(Bangs et al. in press, pp. 19–20). 

Of radio-collared wolves that died 

from 1984–2005, 21% were killed by 

natural causes (including 7% wolf-towolf conflict), 15% died from humancaused mortality other than agency 

control (vehicles, capture-related, 

incidental trapping, accidents, and legal 

harvest of wolves that range into 

Canada), 28% were killed in control 

actions, 21% were illegally killed, and 

for 15% the cause of death was 

unknown (Smith 2007a). 

A comparison of the overall wolf 

population and the number of problem 

wolves killed indicates agency control 

removes, on average, about 9 percent of 

the overall wolf population annually 

(Service et al. 2007, Table 5). Wolf 

mortality under State and Tribal defense 

of property regulations that is incidental 

to other legal activities, agency control 

of problem wolves, and legal hunting 

and trapping will be regulated by 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming and 

Tribes when the Act’s protections are 

removed. This issue is discussed further 

below under Factor D. 

The overall causes and rates of annual 

wolf mortality are affected by several 

variables. Wolves in higher quality 

suitable habitat, such as remote, forested 

areas with few livestock (like National 

Parks or central Idaho wilderness), have 

high survival rates (80%). Wolves in 

unsuitable habitat or in suitable habitat 

without substantial refugia have 

survival rates approaching 60% (Smith 

2007a). Mortality rates also vary 

depending on whether the wolves are 

resident pack members or dispersers, if 

they have a history with livestock 

depredation, or have been relocated 

(Bradley et al. 2005, p. 1506). However, 

the overall rate of wolf mortality has 

been low enough since 1987 that the 

wolf population in the NRM DPS has 

steadily increased. The wolf population 

is now nearly three times as numerous 

as needed to meet minimum recovery 

levels and is distributed throughout 

most suitable habitat within the NRM 

DPS (Service 1987, p. 23; Service 1994, 

p. 1:6). 

When the NRM DPS of the gray wolf 

is delisted, State management will likely 

increase the mortality rate outside 

National Parks and National Wildlife 

Refuges from its current level of about 

26 percent annually (Smith 2007a). Wolf 

mortality, as high as 50 percent 

annually, may be sustainable under 

some conditions (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 

185). Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming 

have the regulatory authorization and 

commitment to regulate humanπcaused 

mortality so that the wolf population 

remains above its numerical and 

distributional recovery goals. This issue 

is discussed further below under Factor 

D. 

In summary, human-caused mortality 

to adult radio-collared wolves in the 

NRM DPS, averaging over 20 percent 

per year (Smith 2007a), still allows for 

rapid wolf population growth. The 

protection of wolves under the Act 

promoted rapid initial wolf population 

growth in suitable habitat. Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming have committed to 

continue to regulate human-caused 

mortality so that it does not reduce 

numbers of wolves in the NRM DPS 

below recovery levels. Montana, Idaho, 

Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, and 

Utah have adequate laws and 

regulations to ensure that the NRM DPS 

remains above recovery levels (see 

Factor D). Each post-delisting 

management entity (State, Tribal, and 

Federal) has experienced and 

professional wildlife staff to ensure 

those commitments can be 

accomplished. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10546 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

D. The Adequacy or Inadequacy of 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms 

To address this factor, we compare 

the current regulatory mechanisms 

within the NRM DPS to the future 

mechanisms that would provide the 

framework for wolf management after 

delisting. These regulatory mechanisms 

are and will be implemented by the 

State governments included in the NRM 

DPS. Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming’s 

wolf management programs are 

designed to maintain a recovered wolf 

population while minimizing the 

damage it causes by allowing for 

removal of wolves in areas of chronic 

conflict or in unsuitable habitat. The 

three States with habitat occupied by 

persistent wolf packs have adopted wolf 

management plans that will govern how 

wolves will be managed when delisted. 

As discussed below, we have 

determined that Montana’s, Idaho’s, and 

Wyoming’s plans will provide adequate 

regulatory mechanisms because these 

States have management plans that 

would maintain at least 10 breeding 

pairs and 100 wolves per State by 

managing for a safety margin of at least 

15 breeding pairs and at least 150 

wolves in each State. 

While it is unknown at this time what 

levels the wolf population would 

ultimately achieve, other than above the 

minimum management objectives, 

Montana’s plan states ‘‘approximately 

328–657 wolves (or 27–54 breeding 

pairs) would be present in Montana in 

2015’’ (Montana 2003, p. 132); Idaho 

intends to manage well above 20 

breeding pairs to maintain opportunities 

for regulated public hunting of wolves 

only above that level, and ≤2003 levels 

of livestock and big game conflict (in 

2003 there were 345 wolves in 25 

breeding pairs in Idaho) (Idaho 2007, 

pp. 16, 20–21; Idaho 2007 pp. 20–21; 

Service et al. 2007, Table 4); and 

Wyoming has committed to manage for 

7 breeding pairs outside the National 

Parks (historically representing 70–98 

wolves) in addition to those in YNP 

(since 2000 YNP annually averaged 140 

wolves in 10 breeding pairs) that could 

result in Wyoming, including those in 

YNP, maintaining at least 210–238 

wolves and 17 breeding pairs (Wyoming 

2007, p. 1; Service et al. 2000–2007, 

Table 2). Based on these State 

projections, the entire NRM wolf 

population will likely be managed 

around 883–1240 wolves in 69–96 

breeding pairs, roughly two to four 

times higher than minimum recovery 

levels but slightly below the 2007 

estimate of around 1,500 wolves 

(Service 2007a). Any wolf conservation 

by the Tribes and the States of 

Washington, Oregon, and Utah will be 

beneficial, but is not necessary to either 

achieving or maintaining a recovered 

wolf population in the NRM DPS. 

Current Wolf Management—The 1980 

and 1987 NRM wolf recovery plans 

(Service 1980, p. 4; 1987, p. 3) 

recognized that conflict with livestock 

was the major reason that wolves were 

extirpated and that management of 

conflicts was a necessary component of 

wolf restoration. The plans also 

recognized that control of problem 

wolves was necessary to maintain local 

public tolerance of wolves and that 

removal of some wolves would not 

prevent the wolf population from 

achieving recovery. In 1988, the Service 

developed an interim wolf control plan 

that applied to Montana and Wyoming 

(Service 1988, p. 1); the plan was 

amended in 1990 to include Idaho and 

eastern Washington (Service 1990, p. 1). 

We analyzed the effectiveness of those 

plans in 1999, and revised our 

guidelines for management of problem 

wolves listed as endangered (Service 

1999, p. 1). Evidence showed that most 

wolves do not attack livestock, 

especially larger livestock such as adult 

horses and cattle, but wolf presence 

around livestock will result in some 

level of depredation (Bangs and Shivik 

2001; Bangs et al. 2005, pp. 348–350). 

Therefore, we developed a set of 

guidelines under which depredating 

wolves could be harassed, moved, or 

killed by agency officials (Service 1999, 

pp. 39–40). The control plans were 

based on the premise that agency wolf 

control actions would affect only a 

small number of wolves, but would 

sustain public tolerance for nondepredating wolves, thus enhancing the 

chances for successful population 

recovery (Mech 1995, pp. 276–276). Our 

assumptions have proven correct, as 

wolf depredation on livestock and 

subsequent agency control actions have 

remained at low levels (annually 

averaging about 64 cattle, 135 sheep, 8 

dogs, and 3 other forms of livestock 

from 1995–2006) (Service et al. 2007, 

Table 5), and the wolf population has 

expanded its distribution and numbers 

far beyond, and more quickly than, 

earlier predictions (Service 1994, p. 

2:12; Service et al. 2007, Table 4). 

The conflict between wolves and 

livestock has resulted in the average 

annual removal of 8–10 percent of the 

wolf population (Bangs et al. 1995, p. 

130; Bangs et al. 2004, p. 92; Bangs et 

al. 2005, pp. 342–344; Service et al. 

2007, Tables 4, 5; Smith 2007a). We 

estimate that each year illegal killing 

removed another 10 percent of the wolf 

population, and accidental and 

unintentional human-caused deaths 

have removed another 3 percent (Smith 

2007a). Even with this level of 

mortality, populations have expanded 

rapidly (Service et al. 2007, Table 5). 

Despite liberal regulations regarding 

wolf removal, all suitable areas for 

wolves are being occupied by resident 

packs (Service et al. 2007, Figure 1). 

Wolf pack distribution has remained 

largely unchanged since the end of 2000 

(Service et al. 2001–2007, Figure 1), 

indicating that wolf packs are simply 

filling the areas with suitable habitat, 

not successfully expanding their range 

into unsuitable habitat. 

Because wolf populations continually 

try to expand, wolves will increasingly 

disperse into unsuitable areas that are 

intensively used for livestock 

production. A higher percentage of 

wolves in those areas will result in wolf 

conflicts with livestock, and a larger 

number of those wolves will be removed 

to reduce future livestock damage. In 

2006 about 12 percent of the NRM wolf 

population was removed because of 

conflicts with livestock but the 

population still increased over 20 

percent. In 2007 the rate of removal was 

even higher and the wolf population 

still increased by nearly 20 percent 

(Service 2007a). Human-caused 

mortality would have to remove 34 to as 

much as 50 percent of the wolf 

population annually before population 

growth would cease (Fuller et al. 2003, 

pp. 184–185). Preliminary wolf survival 

data from radio-telemetry studies 

suggests that adult wolf mortality 

resulting from conflict with people 

could nearly be doubled beyond the 

current 23 percent annual rate and still 

not significantly impact wolf population 

recovery (Smith 2007a). Wolf 

populations are quite resilient to 

human-caused mortality, and 

compensate for it in part by lower rates 

of natural mortality and lower dispersal 

rates. In addition, wolf packs quickly 

adapt to social vacancies by replacing 

breeders or adopting orphaned pups, 

thus maintaining breeding pairs. The 

State management laws and plans 

intend to balance the level of wolf 

mortality by regulating human-caused 

mortality with the wolf population 

growth rate to achieve population 

objectives in each State. 

Regulatory Assurances Within the 

NRM DPS—In 1999, the Governors of 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming agreed 

that regional coordination in wolf 

management planning among the States, 

Tribes, and other jurisdictions would be 

necessary to ensure timely delisting. 

They signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding to facilitate cooperation 

among the three States in developing 

adequate State wolf management plans 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10547 

so that delisting could proceed. In this 

agreement, all three States committed to 

maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and 

100 wolves per State. The States were to 

develop their pack definitions to 

approximate the current breeding pair 

definition. Governors from the three 

States renewed that agreement in April 

2002. 

The wolf population in the NRM 

achieved its numerical and 

distributional recovery goals at the end 

of 2000. The temporal portion of the 

recovery goal (maintaining numerical 

and distributional recovery goals for 3 

consecutive years) was achieved at the 

end of 2002. Because the primary threat 

to the wolf population (human-caused 

mortality) still has the potential to 

significantly impact wolf populations if 

not adequately managed, under the Act 

there must be regulatory assurances that 

the States will manage for sustainable 

mortality levels before we can remove 

the Act’s protections. Therefore, we 

requested that the States of Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming prepare State wolf 

management plans to demonstrate how 

they would manage wolves after the 

protections of the Act were removed. 

Wolf management by the Tribes and the 

States of Washington, Oregon, and Utah 

might result in a few wolf breeding 

pairs, but they would not be necessary 

to either achieving or maintaining a 

recovered wolf population in the NRM 

DPS, because habitat in those areas is 

limited and often distant from the core 

recovery areas. Likewise, no threats in 

those States or on Tribal lands could be 

significant enough to affect wolf 

population recovery in Montana, Idaho, 

or Wyoming. The Service provided 

varying degrees of funding and 

assistance to the States while they 

developed their wolf management 

plans. Several issues key to our 

approval of State plans include 

regulations that would provide for 

regulatory control of take, a pack 

definition biologically consistent with 

the Service’s definition of a breeding 

pair, the ability to realistically manage 

State wolf populations, agency 

monitoring of the wolf population and 

any impacts to it, and the number of 

breeding pairs and wolves the States 

agree to manage for above minimum 

recovery levels. 

The final Service determination of the 

adequacy of those three key State 

management plans was based on the 

combination of Service knowledge of 

State law, the State management plans, 

wolf biology, our experience managing 

wolves for the last 20 years, peer review 

of the State plans, and the State’s 

response to peer review. Those State 

plans can be viewed at http:// 

westerngraywolf.fws.gov/. 

After our analysis of the State laws, 

the State plans, and other factors, the 

Service determined that State laws and 

wolf management plans were adequate 

to assure the Service that each State’s 

share of the NRM wolf population 

would be maintained above recovery 

levels following delisting. Therefore, we 

determined those regulatory 

mechanisms met the requirements of the 

Act. State and Tribal wolf management 

plans in the NRM DPS are discussed 

below. 

Montana—The gray wolf was listed 

under the Montana Nongame and 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 

1973 (87–5–101 MCA). Senate Bill 163, 

passed by the Montana Legislature and 

signed into law by the Governor in 

2001, establishes the current legal status 

for wolves in Montana. Upon Federal 

delisting, wolves will be classified and 

protected under Montana law as a 

‘‘Species in Need of Management’’ (87–

5–101 to 87–5–123). Such species are 

primarily managed through regulation 

of all forms of human-caused mortality 

in a manner similar to trophy game 

animals like mountain lions and black 

bears. The MFWP and the Commission 

would then finalize more detailed 

administrative rules, as is typically done 

for other resident wildlife, but they 

must be consistent with the Serviceapproved Montana wolf management 

plan and State law. Classification as a 

‘‘Species in Need of Management’’ and 

the associated administrative rules 

under Montana State law create the 

legal mechanism to protect wolves and 

regulate human-caused mortality 

beyond the immediate defense of life/ 

property situations. Some illegal 

human-caused mortality would still 

occur, but is to be prosecuted under 

State law and Commission regulations. 

In 2001, the Governor of Montana 

appointed the Montana Wolf 

Management Advisory Council to advise 

MFWP regarding wolf management after 

the species is removed from the lists of 

Federal and State-protected species. In 

August 2003, MFWP completed a Final 

EIS pursuant to the Montana 

Environmental Policy Act and 

recommended that the Updated 

Advisory Council alternative be selected 

as Montana’s Final Gray Wolf 

Conservation and Management Plan 

(Montana 2003, p. 131). See http:// 

www.fwp.State.mt.us to view the MFWP 

Final EIS and the Montana Gray Wolf 

Conservation and Management Plan. 

Under the management plan, the wolf 

population will be maintained above the 

recovery level of 10 breeding pairs by 

managing for a safety margin of at least 

15 breeding pairs. MFWP will manage 

problem wolves in a manner similar to 

the control program currently being 

implemented in the experimental 

population area in southern Montana, 

whereby landowners and livestock 

producers on public land can shoot 

wolves seen attacking livestock or dogs, 

and agency control of problem wolves is 

incremental and in response to 

confirmed depredations. State 

management of conflicts would become 

more protective of wolves, and no 

public hunting would be allowed if 

there are fewer than 15 packs. Wolves 

will not be deliberately confined to any 

specific areas of Montana, but their 

distribution and numbers will be 

managed adaptively based on ecological 

factors, wolf population status, conflict 

mitigation, and human social tolerance. 

The MFWP plan commits to implement 

its management framework in a manner 

that encourages connectivity among 

wolf populations in Canada, Idaho, 

GYA, and Montana to maintain the 

overall metapopulation structure. Wolf 

management will include population 

monitoring, routine analysis of 

population health, management in 

concert with prey populations, law 

enforcement, control of domestic 

animal/human conflicts, consideration 

of a wolf-damage compensation 

program, research, and information and 

public outreach. Montana’s plan 

(Montana 2003, p. 132) predicts that 

under State management, the wolf 

population will increase to between 328 

and 657 wolves with approximately 27 

to 54 breeding pairs by 2015. 

An important ecological factor 

determining wolf distribution in 

Montana is the availability and 

distribution of wild ungulates. Montana 

has a rich, diverse, and widely 

distributed prey base on both public and 

private lands. The MFWP has and will 

continue to manage wild ungulates 

according to Commission-approved 

policy direction and species 

management plans. The plans typically 

describe a management philosophy that 

protects the long-term sustainability of 

the ungulate populations, allows 

recreational hunting of surplus game, 

and aims to keep the population within 

management objectives based on 

ecological and social considerations. 

The MFWP takes a proactive approach 

to integrate management of ungulates 

and carnivores. Ungulate harvest is to be 

balanced with maintaining sufficient 

prey populations to sustain Montana’s 

segment of a recovered wolf population. 

Ongoing efforts to monitor populations 

of both ungulates and wolves will 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10548 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

provide credible, scientific information 

for wildlife management decisions. 

State regulations will allow agency 

management of problem wolves by 

MFWP and USDA-Wildlife Services 

(WS); take by private citizens in defense 

of private property; and, when the 

population is above 15 packs, regulated 

hunting of wolves. Montana wildlife 

regulations allowing take in defense of 

private property are similar to the 2005 

experimental population regulations, 

whereby landowners and livestock 

grazing permittees can shoot wolves 

seen attacking or molesting livestock or 

pets as long as such incidents are 

reported promptly and subsequent 

investigations confirm that livestock 

were being attacked by wolves. The 

MFWP has enlisted and directed 

USDA–WS in problem wolf 

management, just as the Service has 

done since 1987. 

When the Service reviewed and 

determined that the Montana wolf 

management plan met the requirements 

of the Act, we stated that Montana’s 

wolf management plan would maintain 

a recovered wolf population and 

minimize conflicts with other 

traditional activities in Montana’s 

landscape. The Service has every 

confidence that Montana will 

implement the commitments it has 

made in its current laws, regulations, 

and wolf plan. In June 2005, MFWP 

signed a Cooperative Agreement with 

the Service, and it now manages all 

wolves in Montana subject to general 

oversight by the Service. The State’s 

oversight has proven to be successful, as 

Montana’s wolf population estimate 

increased from 152 wolves in 15 

breeding pairs in late 2004 (Service et 

al. 2007, Table 4) to about 394 wolves 

in 37 breeding pairs in 2007 (Service 

2007a) since the 2005 agreement. 

Idaho—The Idaho Fish and Game 

Commission (Idaho Commission) has 

authority to classify wildlife under 

Idaho Code 36–104(b) and 36–201. The 

gray wolf was classified as endangered 

by the State until March 2005, when the 

Idaho Commission reclassified the 

species as a big game animal under 

Idaho Administrative Procedures Act 

(13.01.06.100.01.d). The big game 

classification will take effect upon 

Federal delisting, and until then, wolves 

will be managed under Federal status. 

Wolves are a big game animal, and State 

regulations will adjust human–caused 

wolf mortality to ensure that recovery 

levels are exceeded. Title 36 of the 

Idaho statutes currently has penalties 

associated with illegal take of big game 

animals. These rules are consistent with 

the legislatively adopted Idaho Wolf 

Conservation and Management Plan 

(IWCMP) (Idaho 2002) and big game 

hunting restrictions currently in place. 

The IWCMP states that wolves will be 

protected against illegal take as a big 

game animal under Idaho Code 36–

1402, 36–1404, and 36–202(h). 

The IWCMP was written with the 

assistance and leadership of the Wolf 

Oversight Committee established in 

1992 by the Idaho Legislature. Many 

special interest groups, including 

legislators, sportsmen, livestock 

producers, conservationists, and IDFG 

personnel, were involved in the 

development of the IWCMP. The 

Service provided technical advice to the 

Committee and reviewed numerous 

drafts before the IWCMP was finalized. 

In March 2002, the IWCMP was adopted 

by joint resolution of the Idaho 

Legislature. The IWCMP can be found 

at: http://www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/ 

cms/wildlife/wolves/wolf_plan.pdf. 

The IWCMP calls for IDFG to be the 

primary manager of wolves after 

delisting; to maintain a minimum of 15 

packs of wolves as a substantial margin 

of safety over the 10 breeding pair 

minimum; and to manage them as a 

viable self-sustaining population that 

will never require relisting under the 

Act. Wolf take will be more liberal if 

there are more than 15 packs and more 

conservative if there are fewer than 15 

packs in Idaho. The wolf population 

will be managed by defense of property 

regulations similar to those now in 

effect under the Act. Public harvest will 

be incorporated as a management tool 

when there are 15 or more packs in 

Idaho to help mitigate conflicts with 

livestock producers or big game 

populations that outfitters, guides, and 

others hunt. The IWCMP allows IDFG to 

classify the wolf as a big game animal 

or furbearer, or to assign a special 

classification of predator, so that 

human-caused mortality can be 

regulated. In March 2005, the Idaho 

Commission proposed that, upon 

delisting, the wolf would be classified 

as a big game animal with the intent of 

managing wolves similar to black bears 

and mountain lions, including the 

opportunity for regulated public 

hunting when populations are above 15 

packs. The IWCMP calls for the State to 

coordinate with USDA–WS to manage 

depredating wolves depending on the 

number of wolves in the State. It also 

calls for a balanced educational effort. 

In November 2007, Idaho released its 

Wolf Population Management Plan for 

public review and comment (Otter 2007, 

p. 1; Idaho 2007). That plan is a more 

detailed step-down management plan 

compared to the general guidance given 

in the plan Idaho adopted in 2002 and 

discusses how the population will likely 

be managed well above 20 breeding 

pairs to provide hunting opportunities 

for wolves surplus to that goal (Idaho 

2007, p. 16). The 2007 plan details how 

wolf populations will be managed to 

assure their niche in Idaho’s wild places 

into the future (Otter 2007). It should be 

finalized in March 2008. 

Elk and deer populations are managed 

to meet biological and social objectives 

for each herd unit according to the 

State’s species management plans. The 

IDFG will manage both ungulates and 

carnivores, including wolves, to 

maintain viable populations of each. 

Ungulate harvest would be focused on 

maintaining sufficient prey populations 

to sustain viable wolf and other 

carnivore populations and hunting. 

IDFG has conducted research to better 

understand the impacts of wolves and 

their relationships to ungulate 

population sizes and distribution so that 

regulated take of wolves can be used to 

assist in management of ungulate 

populations and vice versa. 

The Mule Deer Initiative in southeast 

Idaho was implemented by IDFG in 

2005, to restore and improve mule deer 

populations. Though most of the 

initiative lies outside current wolf range 

and suitable wolf habitat in Idaho, 

improving ungulate populations and 

hunter success will decrease negative 

attitudes toward wolves. When mule 

deer increase, some wolves may move 

into the areas that are being highlighted 

under the initiative. Habitat 

improvements within much of southeast 

Idaho would focus on improving mule 

deer conditions. The Clearwater Elk 

Initiative also is an attempt to improve 

elk numbers in the area of the 

Clearwater Region in north Idaho where 

currently IDFG has concerns about the 

health of that once-abundant elk herd 

(Idaho 2006). 

As stated previously, in March 2005 

the gray wolf was reclassified by the 

Idaho Commission as a big game animal 

and this classification will take effect 

upon Federal delisting. Human-caused 

mortality will be regulated as directed 

by the IWCMP to maintain a recovered 

wolf population. The Service has every 

confidence that Idaho will implement 

the commitments it has made in its 

current laws, regulations, and wolf plan. 

In January 2006, the Governor of Idaho 

signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding with the Secretary of the 

Interior that provided the IDFG the 

authority to manage all Idaho wolves 

while they remain listed. The State’s 

oversight has proven to be successful. 

Since the 2006 agreement, Idaho’s wolf 

population estimate increased from 512 

wolves in 36 breeding pairs in late 2005 

(Service et al. 2007, Table 4) to about 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10549 

788 wolves in 41 breeding pairs in 2007 

(Service 2007a.) 

Wyoming—In 2007, the Wyoming 

legislature passed a State statute that 

would permit designation of wolves as 

‘‘trophy game’’ in an area totaling just 

over 12,000 square miles in 

northwestern Wyoming, including YNP, 

Grand Teton National Park, John D. 

Rockefeller Memorial Parkway, adjacent 

USFS-designated Wilderness Areas, and 

adjacent public and private lands, once 

the wolf is delisted from the Act. 

Following the change in State law, 

Wyoming drafted a revised wolf 

management plan (Wyoming 2007). On 

November 16, 2007, the WGFC 

unanimously approved the 2007 

Wyoming Plan (Cleveland 2007, p. 1). 

The Service has determined that this 

plan, if implemented, will provide 

adequate regulatory protections to 

conserve Wyoming’s portion of a 

recovery wolf population into the 

foreseeable future (Hall 2007, p. 1–3). 

The plan automatically goes into effect 

upon the Governor’s certification to the 

Wyoming Secretary of State that all of 

the provisions found in the 2007 

Wyoming wolf management law have 

been met (Freudenthal 2007b, p. 1–3). 

Thus, our determination is conditional 

upon the 2007 Wyoming wolf 

management law being fully in effect 

within 20 days of publication of this 

rule and the wolf management plan 

being legally authorized by Wyoming 

statutes (Hall 2007). 

Implementation of that law and the 

trophy game area of northwestern 

Wyoming is premised on Wyoming’s 

Governor certifying to the Wyoming 

Secretary of State that (1) the Service 

published a delisting rule that includes 

the entire State of Wyoming prior to 

February 28, 2007; (2) the Service 

modified the 2005 special rule [(10(j)] 

for the experimental population that 

addressed Wyoming’s concerns about 

wolf management to maintain ungulate 

herds above State management 

objectives; and (3) settlement or 

resolution of the claims relating to the 

Service not approving Wyoming’s 2003 

wolf management law and wolf plan. 

This action satisfies the first criterion 

above. The second criterion was 

satisfied on January 29, 2008 when the 

Wyoming Governor certified that the 

10(j) rule modification satisfied 

Wyoming’s law (Freudenthal 2008). 

Wyoming has indicated that they will 

deem the claims in the pending 

litigation settled and will request that 

the court dismiss the litigation upon 

publication of this final rule by 

February 28, 2008 (Freudenthal 2007b). 

Dismissal of the case is not needed for 

the 2007 wolf management plan and law 

to become effective (Freudenthal 

2007b). Additionally, on November 19, 

2007, the Governor certified that the 

provisions in the Wyoming wolf 

management law, § 11–6–302(b) and 23–

1–101(b), relating to the trophy game 

area boundary had been changed. We 

anticipate final certification will be 

issued within 20 days of publication of 

this rule. 

If the provisions in the Wyoming wolf 

law are not fulfilled and the final 

certifications are not made within 20 

days of publication of this rule, we will 

withdraw this final rule before its 

effective date. In that case, the 2003 

Wyoming State law and wolf 

management plan will be the regulatory 

mechanisms in Wyoming. As previously 

determined, these mechanisms do not 

provide the necessary regulatory 

mechanisms to ensure that Wyoming’s 

numerical and distributional share of a 

recovered NRM wolf population will be 

conserved (Williams 2004; 71 FR 43410, 

August 1, 2006). In such situation, we 

will replace this final rule with an 

alternate final rule that retains the Act’s 

protections in much of northwestern 

Wyoming, outside the National Parks, 

while wolves would be delisted in all 

other portions of the NRM DPS (72 FR 

6106, February 8, 2007). We are moving 

forward with delisting the entire NRM 

DPS because we fully expect the 

requirements of the 2007 Wyoming 

statute will be satisfied, allowing the 

approved wolf management plan to be 

fully implemented. Thus, the following 

analysis considers the adequacy of the 

2007 Wyoming State law and wolf 

management plan. 

‘‘Trophy game’’ status allows the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 

(WYGFC) and Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD) to regulate 

methods of take, hunting seasons, types 

of allowed take, and numbers of wolves 

that could be killed. Wyoming’s 

management objective is to maintain at 

least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves 

in the trophy area of northwestern 

Wyoming (Freudenthal 2007a). 

Wyoming will manage to maintain 7 of 

these breeding pairs outside the 

National Parks in northwestern 

Wyoming. Wyoming would manage 

wolves as it does other resident trophy 

game, including routine wolf population 

and health monitoring, regulation of 

take by the public, including defense of 

property, and agency control of problem 

wolves (Wyoming 2007). The Trophy 

Game Area in northwestern Wyoming 

(Freudenthal 2007a) encompasses 70% 

of the suitable wolf habitat in Wyoming 

(Oakleaf 2007) and 91% of the area is 

secure public land. In 2006 this area, 

excluding the National Parks, supported 

at least 25 packs, 15 breeding pairs, and 

175 wolves (Service et al. 2007, Table 

2). The Trophy Game Area designated 

by Wyoming is clearly large enough to 

support 15 breeding pairs and 150 

wolves even if Yellowstone Park had 

none (a very unlikely scenario). 

Therefore the Trophy Game Area is 

large enough to maintain Wyoming’s 

commitment to the NRM wolf 

metapopulation on its own. 

Wolves occurring in the portion of the 

State outside of the Trophy Game Area, 

which consists largely of habitat 

unsuitable for wolf pack establishment 

and persistence, will be designated as 

‘‘predatory animals’’ and will be subject 

to unregulated human-caused mortality. 

Areas in Wyoming outside the trophy 

game area have not supported persistent 

wolf packs since 1995 (Service et al. 

1999–2007, Figure 1, 3). Wolves are 

unlike coyotes in that wolf behavior and 

reproductive biology results in wolves 

being extirpated in the face of extensive 

human-caused mortality. These types 

and levels of take would most likely 

prevent wolf packs from persisting in 

areas of Wyoming where they are 

classified as predatory animals. 

Wyoming regulations ensure that 

wolves will be managed to prevent the 

need for relisting in the future. The 

State of Wyoming has designated 

wolves as a Trophy Game Species 

within an area which is capable of 

supporting at least 15 breeding pairs 

(USFWS et al. 2007, Figure 3; Wyoming 

2007, p. 1). The area includes: 

northwest Wyoming beginning at the 

junction of Wyoming Highway 120 and 

the Wyoming-Montana State line; 

southerly along Wyoming Highway 120 

to the Greybull River; southwesterly up 

said river to the Wood River; 

southwesterly up said river to the 

Shoshone National Forest boundary; 

southerly along said boundary to the 

Wind River Indian Reservation 

boundary; westerly, then southerly 

along said boundary to the Continental 

Divide; southeasterly along said divide 

to the Middle Fork of Boulder Creek; 

westerly down said creek to Boulder 

Creek; westerly down said creek to the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest boundary; 

northwesterly along said boundary to its 

intersection with U.S. Highway 189–

191; northwesterly along said highway 

to the intersection with U.S. Highway 

26–89–191; northerly along said 

highway to Wyoming Highway 22 in the 

town of Jackson; westerly along said 

highway to the Wyoming-Idaho State 

line; north along said State line to the 

Wyoming-Montana State line; north, 

then east along said State line to 

Wyoming Highway 120. As stated 

above, the Trophy Game Area is 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10550 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

approximately 91% secure public lands 

and represents only about 12 percent of 

Wyoming, but contains approximately 

70 percent of the suitable wolf habitat 

in Wyoming (Oakleaf 2007). Conversely, 

the area of Wyoming outside the Trophy 

Game Area is not considered significant 

to the recovery of gray wolves in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains (72 FR 6118; 

February 8, 2007; Oakleaf et al. 2006); 

nearly all wolves that have attempted to 

occupy the portion of Wyoming outside 

the Trophy Game Area have been 

involved in conflicts and lethally 

removed under Service management; 

and the stagnant distribution patterns 

since recovery objectives were achieved 

indicate there is limited suitable habitat 

in Wyoming for the NRM DPS wolf 

population to expand significantly 

beyond the three core recovery areas (72 

FR 6120, February 8, 2007). 

Within the Trophy Game Area, the 

WYGFC through the WYGF will have 

management authority over wolves 

outside the National Parks and will 

manage wolves and set harvest 

regulations in such a way as to assure 

that the management targets of at least 

15 breeding pairs and at least 150 

wolves for the State, with at least 7 of 

these breeding pairs in Wyoming 

outside the National Park Units, are met. 

The maintenance of wolf breeding pairs 

outside the National Parks is important 

to supplement those in the National 

Parks that, according to YNP policy, 

will fluctuate naturally and possibly 

widely, and to ensure the GYA is 

maintained at a level and distribution 

(71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006) that 

encourages the incorporation of 

naturally dispersing wolves into the 

GYA system, and that suitable habitat in 

northwestern Wyoming is occupied by 

wolf packs. The State of Wyoming will 

also monitor wolves under the State’s 

predatory animal status, including the 

number and location of all wolves that 

are taken (Wyoming 2007). 

This regulatory framework provides 

assurance that Wyoming’s share of the 

NRM DPS will be maintained above 

recovery levels into the foreseeable 

future and that most suitable wolf 

habitat in Wyoming will be occupied by 

at least 150 wolves in at least 15 wolf 

breeding pairs. This type of 

management framework is consistent in 

its general principles with the 

frameworks in the States of Minnesota, 

Michigan, Wisconsin, Montana, and 

Idaho that have been accepted as 

adequate regulatory frameworks for 

wolves after de-listing. The Wyoming 

regulatory framework provides adequate 

assurances that a viable wolf population 

will be maintained in the NRM DPS. 

Washington—Wolves in Washington 

are listed as endangered under the 

State’s administrative code (WAC 

232.12.014; these provisions may be 

viewed at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/). 

Under Washington’s administrative 

code (WAC 232.12.297), ‘‘endangered’’

means any wildlife species native to the 

State of Washington that is seriously 

threatened with extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range 

within the State. Endangered species in 

the State of Washington are protected 

from hunting, possession, and malicious 

harassment, unless such taking has been 

authorized by rule of the Washington 

Fish and Wildlife Commission (RCW 

77.15.120; these provisions can be 

viewed at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/). 

Following the delisting of the NRM 

DPS, those areas in Washington 

included in the NRM DPS will remain 

listed as endangered by Washington 

State. The areas in Washington not 

included in the NRM DPS will remain 

listed as endangered under both State 

and Federal law. 

Although we have received reports of 

individual and wolf family units in the 

North Cascades of Washington (Almack 

and Fitkin 1998), agency efforts to 

confirm them were unsuccessful and to 

date, no individual wolves or packs 

have ever been documented there (Boyd 

and Pletscher 1999; Jimenez et al. in 

prep). Intervening unsuitable habitat 

makes it highly unlikely that wolves 

from the NRM DPS have dispersed to 

the North Cascades of Washington in 

recent history. 

Washington State does not currently 

have a recovery or management plan for 

wolves, but the State has established a 

wolf working group advisory committee 

and is preparing a State gray wolf 

conservation and management plan (see 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/ 

gray_wolf/). Interagency Wolf Response 

Guidelines have been developed by the 

Service, WDFW, and USDA WS to 

provide a checklist of response actions 

for five situations that may arise in the 

future (can be viewed at http:// 

wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/ 

gray_wolf/contacts.htm). Wolf 

management in Washington may be 

beneficial to the NRM DPS, but is not 

necessary for achieving or maintaining a 

recovered population of wolves in the 

NRM DPS. 

Oregon—The gray wolf has been 

classified as endangered under the 

Oregon Endangered Species Act (ORS 

496.171–192) since 1987. The law 

requires the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Commission to conserve the species in 

Oregon. Anticipating the 

reestablishment of wolves in Oregon 

from the growing Idaho population, the 

Commission directed the development 

of a wolf conservation and management 

plan to meet the requirements of both 

the Oregon Endangered Species Act and 

the Oregon Wildlife Policy. ORS 

496.012 states in part: ‘‘It is the policy 

of the State of Oregon that wildlife shall 

be managed to prevent serious depletion 

of any indigenous species and to 

provide the optimum recreational and 

aesthetic benefits for present and future 

generations of the citizens of this State.’’

In February 2005, the Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Commission adopted the 

Oregon Wolf Conservation and 

Management Plan (Oregon 2005). The 

plan was built to meet the five delisting 

criteria identified in State statutes and 

administrative rules: (1) The species is 

not now (and is not likely in the 

foreseeable future to be) in danger of 

extinction in any significant portion of 

its range in Oregon or in danger of 

becoming endangered; (2) the species’

natural reproductive potential is not in 

danger of failure due to limited 

population numbers, disease, predation, 

or other natural or human-related 

factors affecting its continued existence; 

(3) most populations are not undergoing 

imminent or active deterioration of 

range or primary habitat; (4) 

overutilization of the species or its 

habitat for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes is not 

occurring or likely to occur; and (5) 

existing State or Federal programs or 

regulations are adequate to protect the 

species and its habitat. 

The Plan describes measures the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) will take to conserve and 

manage the species. This includes 

actions that could be taken to protect 

livestock from wolf depredation and 

address human safety concerns. The 

following summarizes the primary 

components of the plan: 

• Wolves that naturally disperse into 

Oregon will be conserved and managed 

under the plan. Wolves will not be 

captured outside of Oregon and released 

in the State. 

• Wolves may be considered for 

Statewide delisting once the population 

reaches four breeding pairs for 3 

consecutive years in eastern Oregon 

(note—the boundary between east and 

west wolf management zones is defined 

by U.S. Highway 97 from the Columbia 

River to the junction of U.S. Highway 

20, southeast on U.S. Highway 20 to the 

junction with U.S. Highway 395, and 

south on U.S. Highway 395 to the 

California border). Four breeding pairs 

are considered the minimum 

conservation population objective, also 

described as Phase 1. The plan calls for 

managing wolves in western Oregon, as 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10551 

if the species remains listed, until the 

western Oregon wolf population reaches 

four breeding pairs. This means, for 

example, that a landowner would be 

required to obtain a permit to address 

depredation problems using injurious 

harassment. 

• While the wolf remains listed as a 

State endangered species, the following 

will be allowed: (1) Wolves may be 

harassed (e.g., shouting, firing a shot in 

the air) to distract a wolf from a 

livestock operation or area of human 

activity; (2) harassment that causes 

injury to a wolf (e.g., rubber bullets or 

bean bag projectiles) may be employed 

to prevent depredation, but only with a 

permit; (3) wolves may be relocated to 

resolve an immediate localized problem 

from an area of human activity (e.g., 

wolf inadvertently caught in a trap) to 

the nearest wilderness area (relocation 

will be done by ODFW or USDA–WS 

personnel); (4) livestock producers who 

witness a wolf ‘in the act’ of attacking 

livestock on public or private land must 

have a permit before taking any action 

that would cause harm to the wolf; and 

(5) wolves involved in chronic 

depredation may be killed by ODFW or 

USDA–WS personnel; however, 

nonlethal methods will be emphasized 

and employed first in appropriate 

circumstances. Under this final delisting 

rule, wolves will remain federally listed 

in the western two thirds of Oregon, and 

neither of these two agencies have 

authority to use lethal removal in the 

portions of Oregon outside of the NRM 

DPS. 

• Once the wolf is State-delisted, 

more options are available to address 

wolf-livestock conflict. While there are 

five to seven breeding pairs, landowners 

with a permit may kill a wolf involved 

in chronic depredation. Five to seven 

breeding pairs is considered the 

management population objective, or 

Phase 2. 

• When there are more than seven 

breeding pairs, under Phase 3, a limited 

controlled hunt could be allowed to 

decrease chronic depredation or reduce 

pressure on wild ungulate populations. 

• The plan provides wildlife 

managers with adaptive management 

strategies to address wolf predation 

problems on wild ungulates if 

confirmed wolf predation leads to 

declines in localized herds. 

• In the unlikely event that a person 

is attacked by a wolf, the plan describes 

the circumstances under which 

Oregon’s criminal code and the Federal 

Endangered Species Act would allow 

harassing, harming or killing of wolves 

where necessary to avoid imminent, 

grave injury. Such an incident must be 

reported to law enforcement officials. 

• A strong information and education 

program is proposed to ensure anyone 

with an interest in wolves is able to 

learn more about the species and stay 

informed about wildlife management 

activities. 

• Several research projects are 

identified as necessary for future 

success of long-term wolf conservation 

and management. Monitoring and radiocollaring wolves are listed as critical 

components of the plan both for 

conservation and communication with 

Oregonians. 

• An economic analysis provides 

estimates of costs and benefits 

associated with wolves in Oregon and 

wolf conservation and management. 

• Finally, the plan requires annual 

reporting to the Commission on program 

implementation. 

The Oregon Wolf Management Plan, 

as approved by the Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Commission in February 2005, 

called for three legislative actions, 

which the 2005 Oregon Legislative 

Assembly considered, but did not adopt. 

These actions were: (1) Changing the 

legal status of the gray wolf from 

protected non-game wildlife to a 

‘‘special status mammal’’ under the 

‘‘game mammal’’ definition in ORS 

496.004; (2) amending the wildlife 

damage statute (ORS 498.012) to remove 

the requirement for a permit to lethally 

take a gray wolf caught in the act of 

attacking livestock; and (3) creating a 

State-funded program to pay 

compensation for wolf-caused losses of 

livestock and to pay for proactive 

methods to prevent wolf depredation. 

As a result, the Fish and Wildlife 

Commission amended the Oregon Plan 

in December 2005 and rather than 

dropping the proposals chose to move 

them from the body of the Plan to an 

appendix. The Commission remains on 

record as calling for those legislative 

enhancements; however, 

implementation of the Oregon Plan does 

not depend upon them. 

Under the Oregon Wolf Management 

Plan, the gray wolf will remain 

classified as endangered under State law 

until the conservation population 

objective for eastern Oregon is reached 

(i.e., four breeding pairs for 3 

consecutive years). Once the objective is 

achieved, the State delisting process 

will be initiated. Following delisting 

from the State Endangered Species Act, 

wolves will retain their classification as 

nongame wildlife under ORS 496.375. 

Utah—When federally delisted, 

wolves in that portion of the NRM DPS 

in Utah will remain listed as protected 

wildlife under State law. In Utah, 

wolves fall under three layers of 

protection–(1) State code, (2) 

Administrative Rule and (3) Species 

Management Plan. The Utah Code can 

be found at http://www.le.State.ut.us/ 

code/TITLE23/TITLE23.htm. The 

relevant administrative rules that 

restrict wolf take can be found at 

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/ 

code/r657/r657–003.htm and http:// 

www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/ 

r657–011.htm. These regulations restrict 

all potential taking of wolves in Utah, 

including that portion in the NRM DPS. 

Wolf management in Utah will have no 

effect on the recovered wolf population 

that resides in suitable habitat in 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 

In 2003, the Utah Legislature passed 

House Joint Resolution 12, which 

directed the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources (UDWR) to draft a wolf 

management plan for review, 

modification, and adoption by the Utah 

Wildlife Board, through the Regional 

Advisory Council process. In April 

2003, the Utah Wildlife Board directed 

UDWR to develop a proposal for a wolf 

working group to assist the agency in 

this endeavor. The UDWR created the 

Wolf Working Group in the summer of 

2003. The Wolf Working Group is 

composed of 13 members that represent 

diverse public interests regarding 

wolves in Utah. 

On June 9, 2005, the Utah Wildlife 

Board passed the Utah Wolf 

Management Plan (Utah 2005). The goal 

of the Plan is to manage, study, and 

conserve wolves moving into Utah 

while avoiding conflicts with the elk 

and deer management objectives of the 

Ute Indian Tribe; minimizing livestock 

depredation; and protecting wild 

ungulate populations in Utah from 

excessive wolf predation. The Utah Plan 

can be viewed at http:// 

www.wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/. Its purpose 

is to guide management of wolves in 

Utah during an interim period from 

Federal delisting until 2015, or until it 

is determined that wolves have become 

established in Utah, or the assumptions 

of the plan (political, social, biological, 

or legal) change. During this interim 

period, immigrating wolves will be 

studied to determine where they are 

most likely to settle without conflict. 

Tribal Plans—Approximately 20 

Tribes are within the NRM DPS. 

Currently perhaps only 1–2 wolf packs 

are entirely dependent on Tribal lands 

for their existence in the NRM DPS. In 

the NRM DPS about 32,942 km2 (12,719 

mi2) (3 percent) of the area is Tribal 

land. In the NRM DPS wolf occupied 

habitat, about 4,696 km2 (1,813 mi2) (2 

percent) is Tribal land (Service et al. 

2006; 71 FR 6645, February 8, 2006). 

Therefore, while Tribal lands can 

contribute some habitat for wolf packs 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10552 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

in the NRM, they will be relatively 

unimportant to maintaining a recovered 

wolf population in the NRM DPS. Many 

wolf packs live in areas of public land 

where Tribes have various treaty rights, 

such as wildlife harvest. Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming propose to 

incorporate Tribal harvest into their 

assessment of the potential surplus of 

wolves available for public harvest in 

each State, each year, to ensure that the 

wolf population is maintained above 

recovery levels. Utilization of those 

Tribal treaty rights will not significantly 

impact the wolf population or reduce it 

below recovery levels because a small 

portion of the wolf population could be 

affected by Tribal harvest or lives in 

areas subject to Tribal harvest rights. 

The overall regulatory framework 

analyzed in this rule depends entirely 

on State-led management of wolves that 

are primarily on lands where resident 

wildlife is traditionally managed by the 

State. Any wolves that may establish 

themselves on Tribal lands will be in 

addition to those managed by the State 

outside Tribal reservations. At this point 

in time, only the Wind River Tribe 

(Wind River Tribe 2007) has an 

approved tribal wolf management plan 

for its lands. In addition, Nez Perce 

Tribe had a Service wolf management 

plan approved in 1995, but that plan 

applied only to listed wolves, and it was 

approved by the Service so the Tribe 

could take a portion of the 

responsibility for wolf monitoring and 

management in Idaho under the 1994 

special regulation under section 10(j). 

No other Tribe has submitted a wolf 

management plan. In November 2005, 

the Service requested information from 

all the Tribes in the NRM regarding 

their Tribal regulations and any other 

relevant information regarding Tribal 

management or concerns about wolves 

(Bangs 2004). We reviewed all responses 

and incorporated Tribal comments on 

the 2007 delisting proposal into this 

final rule. 

Summary—State wolf management 

plans for Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming 

(assuming implementation of the 

Wyoming State wolf management law) 

commit to regulation of wolf mortality 

over conflicts with livestock after 

delisting in a manner similar to that 

used by the Service to reduce conflicts 

with private property, and that would 

assume the maintenance of wolf 

populations above recovery levels. 

These State plans have committed to 

using a definition of a wolf pack that 

approximates the Service’s current 

breeding pair definition. Based on that 

definition, they have committed to 

maintaining at least 10 breeding pairs 

and 100 wolves per State by managing 

for a safety margin of at least 15 

breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves 

in each State. In addition, Wyoming has 

committed to manage for at least 7 of 

these wolf breeding pairs outside the 

National Parks. These States are to 

control problem wolves in a manner 

similar to that used by the Service for 

the past 20 years (Service 1988, p. 8; 

1994, pp. 2, 9–12; 1999, pp. 39–40; 70 

FR 1306–1311, January 6, 2005) and use 

adaptive management principles to 

regulate and balance wolf population 

size and distribution with livestock 

conflict and public tolerance. When 

wolf populations are above the State 

management objective of 15 breeding 

pairs, wolf control measures may be 

more liberal. If wolf populations ever 

get below 15 breeding pairs, wolf 

control as directed by each State will be 

more conservative to bring about 

population increases. The State wildlife 

agencies have experienced professional 

staff with expertise in wildlife 

monitoring, research and management, 

veterinarian and forensic science, 

problem wildlife management and 

control, education, outreach, 

administration, regulations and laws, 

and law enforcement that can 

successfully implement the States’

commitments for science-based wolf 

management. 

With delisting the wolf in the NRM 

DPS, the major differences between the 

previous Federal management and the 

new State management of problem 

wolves will be the slightly increased 

authority given to private landowners 

and grazing permittees to take wolves in 

the act of attacking or molesting 

livestock or other domestic animals, and 

public harvest programs to help regulate 

wolf distribution and density to meet 

State management objectives. 

Private take of problem wolves under 

State regulations will replace some 

agency control, but we believe this will 

not substantially increase or decrease 

the overall numbers of problem wolves 

killed each year because of conflicts 

with livestock or affect the recovered 

status of the NRM DPS. Because the 

overall rate of depredation and conflict 

is dependent on the wolf population 

level (Service et al. 2007, Tables 4, 5), 

we believe overall rates of lethal control 

will remain stable and increased legal 

take by private individuals will simply 

replace some of the take of problem 

wolves by public agencies. In contrast to 

the Service recovery program, State and 

Tribal management programs will 

incorporate regulated public harvest 

when wolf populations in Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming are safely above 

recovery levels of 15 or more breeding 

pairs (in Wyoming 7 or more of those 

breeding pairs must be outside the 

National Parks). This approach will help 

manage wolf distribution and numbers 

to minimize conflicts with humans. 

States routinely use regulated public 

harvest to help successfully manage and 

conserve other large predators and wild 

ungulates under their management 

authority. The adjacent States of Utah, 

Oregon, and Washington all have in 

place laws that would remain in effect 

to protect wolves after delisting. Utah 

and Oregon have adopted wolf 

management plans, and Washington is 

currently preparing one. For the 

purposes of this rule there is no need for 

the Service to review or approve state 

wolf management plans outside of 

Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. The 

adjacent States’ management strategies 

should not impact the core recovery 

areas in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming, 

because of the distance of those states 

from the core recovery areas. Any wolf 

breeding pairs that do become 

established in other States in the NRM 

DPS, while not necessary to maintain 

the NRM DPS above recovery levels, can 

only have a positive effect on 

maintaining wolf population recovery in 

the NRM DPS. 

The States of Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming have successfully managed 

resident ungulate populations for 

decades and maintain them at densities 

that would easily support a recovered 

wolf population. They and Federal land 

management agencies will continue to 

manage for high ungulate populations in 

the foreseeable future. Native ungulate 

populations also are maintained at high 

levels by Washington, Oregon, and Utah 

in the portions of those States that are 

in the NRM DPS. No foreseeable 

condition would cause a decline in 

ungulate populations significant enough 

to affect a recovered wolf population. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Public Attitudes Toward the Gray 

Wolf—The primary determinant of the 

long-term status of gray wolf 

populations in the U.S. will be human 

attitudes toward this large predator. 

These attitudes are largely based on the 

real and perceived conflicts between 

human activities and values and wolves, 

such as depredation on livestock and 

pets, competition for surplus wild 

ungulates between hunters and wolves, 

concerns for human safety, wolves’

symbolic representation of wildness and 

ecosystem health, killing of wolves by 

people, and the wolf-related traditions 

of Native American Tribes or local 

culture. 

In recent decades, national support 

has been evident for wolf recovery and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10553 

reintroduction in the NRM (Service 

1994, pp. 5:11–111). With the continued 

help of private conservation 

organizations, the States and Tribes will 

continue to foster public support to 

maintain recovered wolf populations in 

the NRM DPS. We have concluded that 

the State management regulations that 

will go into effect when wolves in the 

NRM DPS are delisted will further 

enhance local public support for wolf 

recovery. State management provides a 

larger and more effective local 

organization and a more familiar means 

for dealing with these conflicts (Mech 

1995, pp. 275–276; Williams et al. 2002, 

p. 582; Bangs et al. 2004, p. 102; Bangs 

et al. in press). State wildlife 

organizations have specific departments 

and staff dedicated to providing 

accurate and science-based public 

education, information, and outreach 

(Idaho 2007, p. 23–24, Appendix A; 

Wyoming 2007, p. 28–29; Montana 

2003, p. 90–91). 

Genetic Considerations—The genetic 

diversity of wolves in North America 

was reduced by the historic large-scale 

extirpation of wolves in North America 

(Leonard et al. 2005, p. 9), but 

populations have rebounded from 

previously low levels and even the 

relatively inbred Mexican wolf 

(Fredrickson et al. 2007) is not 

threatened by reduced genetic diversity 

alone. Even a wolf population on Isle 

Royale National Park that started from 

possibly 2 founders in 1949 and 

remained very small (<50 wolves) has 

persisted until the present time (Boitani 

2003, p. 330). The wolf population on 

the island-like Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, 

was recolonized by a few wolves in the 

1960’s. That population is removed 

from other populations, has remained 

small (<200 wolves), is hunted and 

trapped, doesn’t appear threatened 

(Peterson et al. 1994, p. 1), and is 

genetically fit (Talbot and Scribner 

1997, p. 20–21). Small wolf populations 

are unlikely to be threatened solely by 

loss of genetic diversity, but that 

possibility exists (Boitani 2003, p. 330). 

Many extant wolf populations have 

persisted for many decades or centuries 

with low genetic diversity (Boitani 

2003, pp. 322–03, 330–1; Fritts and 

Carbyn 1996). Furthermore, from a 

purely biological perspective, the NRM 

DPS is just the southern extension of a 

vast North American wolf population 

consisting of many tens of thousands of 

individuals. 

We asked a wolf genetics expert who 

was a peer reviewer on the Service’s 

2006 proposal to delist the WGL wolf 

population (Wayne 2006), whose team 

we had contracted to do a genetic 

analysis of wolves in the NRM, to 

comment on our proposal (Wayne 

2007). We did not ask him to be one of 

the peer reviewers for this proposal 

because of that potential conflict of 

interest. He and his colleagues 

mistakenly believed the Service’s 

recovery goals were to have only 10 

breeding pairs and 100 wolves in each 

of the three States and were unaware of 

the States’ intentions to manage for 

about 883–1,250 wolves in mid-winter. 

Based on this belief they concluded that 

the YNP wolf population was less than 

what would be required for maintaining 

a genetically healthy, self-sustaining 

metapopulation. They believed it was 

too low given the wolf population’s 

current higher population level, and 

that the current genetic isolation of YNP 

and potentially the GYA from the other 

recovery areas and Canada would 

reduce the genetic integrity of the YNP 

segment of the NRM wolf population, 

within 100 years. We carefully 

examined all those claims and 

determined those related to the GYA 

were based on faulty assumptions, 

unjustifiably pessimistic forecasts, and 

therefore we respectfully disagreed with 

them for the reasons stated below. 

Genetic diversity throughout the NRM 

is currently very high (Forbes and Boyd 

1996, p. 1084; Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 

226; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19) and 

likely to remain so especially in the 

northwestern Montana and central 

Idaho core recovery areas, because wolf 

packs are relatively contiguous 

throughout those areas and into Canada 

where wolf packs are numerous and 

contiguous northward to the Arctic 

Ocean (Service et al. 2007, Figure 1). 

However, the theoretical modeling by 

von Holdt et al. (2007; Figure 8) 

indicated that under a worst-case 

scenario in 100 years the genetic 

diversity of wolves in YNP would be 

reduced if it were totally isolated from 

the GYA and the GYA was totally 

isolated from the other core recovery 

areas. That lower genetic diversity 

might result in an average of 4 pups 

being born into each pack rather than 

the current 5 per pack. That would 

certainly not threaten or even reduce the 

number of wolves in YNP which will 

continue to have an adult survival rate 

of around 80%, but lower pup 

production might theoretically reduce 

the rates of wolf dispersal from the Park. 

However, the model’s assumptions are 

misleading. Delisting will not affect 

wolves in YNP and YNP is at the center 

of the GYA core recovery area that is 

composed of wolves in YNP as well as 

those outside of YNP in northwestern 

Wyoming, southwestern Montana, and 

to a lesser extent southeastern Idaho. 

Modeling and field data suggest that 

low-density wolf populations have a 

reduced probability of finding mates 

(Hurford et al. 2006; Brainerd et al. 

2008), so having a high-density core 

refugium for wolves like YNP as the 

cornerstone of the GYA core recovery 

area is fortuitous and provides for a 

much larger and well-dispersed wolf 

population than the one modeled and 

upon which the von Holdt et al. (2007) 

paper based their predictions. 

Wolves have naturally dispersed into 

the GYA. In 1992, an uncollared black 

wolf from northwestern Montana was 

shot just south of YNP (Fain 2007, p. 1). 

Another black wolf was filmed in YNP 

a month before that shooting, but has 

never been reported again. It is 

unknown if it was the same or a 

different wolf. Since 1995, we have 

documented dispersal of wolves to the 

GYA on at least four occasions by radiocollared wolves from Idaho. One was 

likely the alpha male of the Greybull 

pack near Meeteetse, WY. Recently a 

dispersing radio-collared male from 

Idaho has paired with a female in YNP 

(Service 2007b). Two other radiocollared wolves dispersed into the GYA 

from Idaho but were not suspected of 

breeding. Other wolves from Idaho or 

northwestern Montana have 

undoubtedly made the journey to the 

GYA since 1995 but have not been 

detected simply because they were not 

uniquely marked or tracked with radio 

telemetry (an average of only 30% of the 

wolf population is marked). However, 

while genetic studies are continuing, at 

this time no genes from offspring of a 

wolf dispersing from central Idaho or 

northwestern Montana into the GYA 

have been detected in the samples that 

have been analyzed (Wayne 2007). In 

other words, although 4–12 individual 

wolves have naturally dispersed into the 

GYA, to date little, if any, of their DNA 

has become incorporated into the GYA 

portion of the NRM DPS. If no new 

genes ever entered the GYA in the next 

100 years (either naturally or by agency 

relocations), the GYA wolf population’s 

currently high genetic diversity would 

be reduced, but not to the point the 

GYA wolf population would be 

threatened because other wolf 

populations have persisted at lower 

levels and with lower genetic diversity 

for decades or centuries. 

The potential lack of genetic 

connectivity between wolves in YNP 

and wolves in the rest of the NRM DPS 

is not considered a threat under the 

Act’s criteria for persistence, because 

much smaller extant wolf populations 

with much lower genetic diversity have 

persisted for decades or even centuries 

(See Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 33; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10554 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Boitiani 2003, pp. 330–335; Liberg 2005, 

pp. 5–6 for examples). Furthermore, if 

wolves select breeders for genetic 

differences, as data indicate (wolves 

have a strong tendency to select mates 

that will minimize inbreeding) (Bensch 

et al. 2006, p. 72; vonHoldt et al. 2007, 

p. 1), then future dispersers into a 

system experiencing genetic inbreeding 

would be much more likely to have 

their genes strongly selected for and 

incorporated into the inbred population. 

In addition, Montana (2003, p. 35), 

Idaho (2007, p. 20), and Wyoming 

(2007, p. 17) committed to foster 

successful dispersal by maintaining a 

widely-dispersed wolf population over 

45 breeding pairs and 450 wolves, 

continuing to work toward resolving 

wildlife connectivity issues in the NRM 

DPS, including the maintenance of 

traditional ranching/open space, and if 

necessary relocate wolves or use other 

measures if reduced genetic diversity 

ever threatened wolf population 

recovery. Many small populations with 

low genetic diversity expanded rapidly 

when human persecution stopped 

(Boitani 2003, pp. 317–340; Fritts and 

Carbyn 1996, pp. 31–33). As a final 

safeguard, which is highly unlikely to 

be needed, relocation has proven to be 

a relatively simple procedure. Genetic 

rescue, improved pup production, and 

population increases have occurred in 

severely inbred small wolf populations 

as a result of the incorporation of one 

or two new genetic lines/individuals 

(Vila et al. 2003, p. 91; Liberg et al. 

2004, p. 17; Liberg 2005, pp. 5–6; Mills 

2006, pp. 195–96; Fredrickson et al. 

2007, p. 2365). 

We agree with the conclusions of 

vonHoldt et al.’s (2007, pp. 18–19) that 

‘‘these limitations can potentially be 

addressed by management actions such 

as increased protection, habitat 

restoration, and population 

augmentation,’’ all things Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming have already 

committed to do in their wolf 

management plans. We also agree that 

genetic data should be incorporated into 

long-term wolf conservation efforts and 

are confident the States will consider all 

the recommendations made by 

vonHoldt et al. (2007, p. 19) and other 

scientific literature when they manage 

wolf numbers and distribution in the 

NRM DPS. 

Climate Change—While there is much 

debate about the rates at which carbon 

dioxide levels, atmospheric 

temperatures, and ocean temperatures 

will rise, the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of 

leading climate scientists commissioned 

by the United Nations, concluded there 

is a general consensus among the 

world’s best scientists that climate 

change is occurring (Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change 2001, pp. 2–

3; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 2007, p. 4). The twentieth 

century was the warmest in the last 

1,000 years (Inkley et al. 2004, pp. 2–3) 

with global mean surface temperature 

increasing by 0.4 to 0.8 degrees Celsius 

(0.7 to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit). These 

increases in temperature were more 

pronounced over land masses as 

evidenced by the 1.5 to 1.7 degrees 

Celsius (2.7 to 3.0 degrees Fahrenheit) 

increase in North America since the 

1940s (Vincent et al. 1999, p. 96; Cayan 

et al. 2001, p. 411). According to the 

IPCC, warmer temperatures will 

increase 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius (2.0 

to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 2007, pp. 10–11). The 

magnitude of warming in the NRM has 

been particularly great, as indicated by 

an 8-day advance in the appearance of 

spring phenological indicators in 

Edmonton, Alberta, since the 1930s 

(Cayan et al. 2001, p. 400). The 

hydrologic regime in the NRM also has 

changed with global climate change, 

and is projected to change further 

(Bartlein et al. 1997, p. 786; Cayan et al. 

2001, p. 411; Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 

223–224). Under global climate change 

scenarios, the NRM may eventually 

experience milder, wetter winters and 

warmer, drier summers (Bartlein et al. 

1997, p. 786). Additionally, the pattern 

of snowmelt runoff also may change, 

with a reduction in spring snowmelt 

(Cayan et al. 2001, p. 411) and an earlier 

peak (Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223–224), 

so that a lower proportion of the annual 

discharge will occur during spring and 

summer. 

Even with these changes, climate 

change should not threaten the NRM 

wolf population. Wolves are habitat 

generalists and next to humans are the 

most widely distributed land mammal 

on earth. Wolves live in every habitat 

type in the Northern Hemisphere that 

contains ungulates, and once ranged 

from central Mexico to the Arctic Ocean 

in North America. The NRM DPS is 

roughly in the middle of historic wolf 

distribution in North America, so 

wolves could easily adapt to the slightly 

warmer and drier conditions that are 

predicted with climate change, 

including any northward expansion of 

diseases, parasites, new prey, or 

competitors or reductions in species 

currently at or near the southern extent 

of their range. 

Changing climate conditions have the 

potential to impact wolf prey. However, 

the extent and rate to which ungulate 

populations will be impacted is difficult 

to foresee with any level of confidence. 

One logical consequence of climate 

change could be a reduction in the 

number of elk, deer, moose, and bison 

dying over winter, thus maintaining a 

higher overall prey base for wolves 

(Wilmers and Getz 2005, p. 574; 

Wilmers and Post 2006, p. 405). 

Furthermore, increased over-winter 

survival would likely result in overall 

increases and more resiliency in 

ungulate populations, thereby providing 

more prey for wolves. 

Catastrophic Events—The habitat 

model/PVA by Carroll et al. (2003, p. 

543) analyzed environmental 

stochasticity and predicted it was 

unlikely to threaten wolf persistence in 

the GYA. We also considered 

catastrophic and stochastic events to the 

extent possible. None of these factors 

are thought to pose a significant risk to 

wolf recovery in the foreseeable future. 

With regard to wildfires, which humans 

often view as catastrophic events, large 

mobile species such as wolves and their 

ungulate prey usually are not adversely 

impacted.Wildfires in the NRM often 

lead to an increase in ungulate food 

supplies and an increase in ungulate 

numbers, which in turn supports 

increased wolf numbers. Wolves are an 

exceptionally resilient species. 

Impacts to Wolf Pack Social 

Structure—When human-caused 

mortality rates are low, packs contain 

older individuals. Older experienced 

individuals (5–7 yrs old) have gained 

their maximum body size and weight. 

They help maintain traditions (e.g., 

hunting bison) in a pack and are more 

successful at killing very large prey. 

They also help stabilize their pack’s 

social structure and can more 

successfully defend their territory from 

neighboring wolf packs (Smith 2007a). 

All these effects will continue in areas 

like YNP, GTNP, GNP, the wilderness 

areas surrounding those Parks, and the 

wilderness areas and most remote 

portions of central Idaho and 

northwestern Montana, where humancaused mortality is relatively low. These 

‘‘natural’’ social structures will continue 

unaltered in those areas after wolves are 

delisted. However, wolves in much of 

the NRM DPS will be constantly 

interacting with livestock and people 

and will not be at biological carrying 

capacity or maximum density. In 

addition, regulated hunting will be 

allowed by the States and that will 

increase wolf mortality rates. Wolf 

packs have high rates of natural 

turnover (Mech 2006, p. 1482) and 

quickly adapt to changes in pack social 

structure (Brainerd et al. 2008). Higher 

rates of human-caused mortality also 

may simply replace some forms of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10555 

natural mortality (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 

185–6). Thus the potential effects 

caused by natural wolf pack dynamics 

in much of the NRM DPS will be 

moderated to varying degrees by 

conflicts with humans and rates of 

human-caused mortality (Garrott et al. 

2005; pp. 7–9; Campbell et al. 2006, p. 

363). Higher rates of human-caused 

mortality outside protected areas will 

result in different wolf pack size and 

structure than that in protected areas, 

but wolves in many parts of the world, 

including most of North America, 

experience various levels of humancaused mortality and the associated 

disruption in natural processes and wolf 

social structure without ever threatening 

the population (Boitani 2003). 

Therefore, while social structure 

disruption may occur in the future, it 

will not threaten the wolf with 

extinction in the foreseeable future. 

Summary 

No manmade or natural factors 

threaten wolf population recovery in the 

NRM DPS now or in the foreseeable 

future. Public attitudes toward wolves 

have improved greatly over the past 30 

years, and we expect that, given 

adequate continued management of 

conflicts, those attitudes will continue 

to support wolf restoration. The State 

wildlife agencies have professional 

education, information, and outreach 

components and are to present balanced 

science-based information to the public 

that will continue to foster general 

public support for wolf restoration and 

the necessity of conflict resolution to 

maintain public tolerance of wolves. 

Additionally, any wolf genetic viability, 

interbreeding coefficients or changes in 

wolf pack social structure are unlikely 

to threaten the wolf population in the 

NRM DPS in the foreseeable future, but 

if the GYA population segment was 

threatened that issue could be easily 

resolved by reintroduction or other 

deliberate management actions, as 

promised by the States, if it ever 

becomes necessary. 

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis 

Is the Species Threatened or 

Endangered throughout ‘‘All’’ of Its 

Range—As required by the Act, we 

considered the five potential threat 

factors to assess whether the gray wolf 

in the NRM DPS is threatened or 

endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. When 

considering the listing status of the 

species, the first step in the analysis is 

to determine whether the species is in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range. If this is the case, then the species 

is listed in its entirety. For instance, if 

the threats against a species are acting 

on only a portion of its range, but they 

are at such a large scale that they place 

the entire species in danger of 

extinction, we would list the entire 

species. 

Human-caused mortality is the most 

significant threat to the long-term 

conservation of the gray wolf. Managing 

this source of mortality (i.e., 

overutilization of wolves for 

commercial, recreational, scientific and 

educational purposes and human 

predation) remains the primary 

challenge to maintaining a recovered 

wolf population into the foreseeable 

future. Montana and Idaho have wolf 

management plans to regulate humancaused mortality that are current and 

effective under State law and that the 

Service has determined are adequate to 

support a recovered wolf population. 

We have also determined that the 2007 

Wyoming wolf management plan, if 

implemented, will provide adequate 

regulatory protections to conserve 

Wyoming’s portion of a recovery wolf 

population into the foreseeable future 

(Hall 2007, pp. 1–3). As stated 

previously, the 2007 Wyoming wolf 

management plan automatically goes 

into effect upon the Governor’s 

certification to the Wyoming Secretary 

of State that all of the provisions found 

in the 2007 Wyoming wolf management 

law have been met (Freudenthal 2007b, 

pp. 1–3). Thus, while our determination 

is conditional upon the 2007 Wyoming 

wolf management law being fully in 

effect within 20 days of publication of 

this rule and the wolf management plan 

being legally authorized by Wyoming 

statutes (Hall 2007), we anticipate that 

this final certification will be issued 

within the specified time period. 

Therefore, we have concluded that each 

State will maintain its share and 

distribution of the NRM DPS wolf 

population above recovery levels for the 

foreseeable future. 

In terms of habitat, the amount and 

distribution of suitable habitat in public 

ownership provides, and will continue 

to provide, large core areas that contain 

high-quality habitat of sufficient size to 

anchor a recovered wolf population 

(assuming adequate regulatory 

mechanisms are in place). Our analysis 

of land-use practices shows these areas 

will maintain their suitability well into 

the foreseeable future, if not 

indefinitely. These areas also provide 

the necessary connectivity to support a 

three-part metapopulation. As 

illustrated in the GYA in 2005 and 

discussed in our 2006 12-month finding 

(71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006), disease 

and parasites can play a temporary role 

in population stability. That said, as 

long as populations are managed above 

recovery levels, diseases or parasites are 

not likely to threaten the recovered 

NRM DPS at any point in the 

foreseeable future. Natural predation is 

likely to remain an insignificant factor 

in population dynamics into the 

foreseeable future. Finally, we believe 

that other natural or manmade factors 

are unlikely to threaten the recovered 

wolf population within the foreseeable 

future. 

Overall, we have determined that 

secure portions of Idaho, Montana and 

Wyoming contain habitat of sufficient 

quality, extent, and distribution to 

collectively support connected, stable 

populations of more than 45 breeding 

pairs and 450 wolves that will not fall 

below 30 breeding pairs and 300 

wolves. Connectivity with wolves in 

Canada will provide further stability to 

this portion of the NRM DPS. Thus, the 

NRM DPS does not merit continued 

listing as threatened or endangered 

throughout ‘‘all’’ of its range. 

Is the Species Threatened or 

Endangered in a Significant Portion of 

Its Range—Having determined that the 

NRM DPS of gray wolf does not meet 

the definition of threatened or 

endangered in all of its range, we must 

next consider whether there are any 

significant portions of its range that are 

in danger of extinction or are likely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable 

future. On March 16, 2007, a formal 

opinion was issued by the Solicitor of 

the Department of the Interior, ‘‘The 

Meaning of ‘In Danger of Extinction 

Throughout All or a Significant Portion 

of Its Range’ ’’ (U.S. DOI 2007). We have 

summarized our interpretation of that 

opinion and the underlying statutory 

language below. A portion of a species’

range is significant if it is part of the 

current range of the species and is 

important to the conservation of the 

species because it contributes 

meaningfully to the representation, 

resiliency, or redundancy of the species. 

The contribution must be at a level such 

that its loss would result in a decrease 

in the ability to conserve the species. 

The first step in determining whether 

a species is threatened or endangered in 

a significant portion of its range is to 

identify any portions of the range of the 

species that warrant further 

consideration. The range of a species 

can theoretically be divided into 

portions in an infinite number of ways. 

However, there is no purpose to 

analyzing portions of the range that are 

not reasonably likely to be significant 

and threatened or endangered. To 

identify only those portions that warrant 

further consideration, we determine 

whether there is substantial information 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10556 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

indicating that (i) the portions may be 

significant and (ii) the species may be in 

danger of extinction there or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

In practice, a key part of this analysis is 

whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated in some way. If the threats 

to the species are essentially uniform 

throughout its range, no portion is likely 

to warrant further consideration. 

Moreover, if any concentration of 

threats applies only to portions of the 

range that are unimportant to the 

conservation of the species, such 

portions will not warrant further 

consideration. 

If we identify any portions that 

warrant further consideration, we then 

determine whether in fact the species is 

threatened or endangered in any 

significant portion of its range. 

Depending on the biology of the species, 

its range, and the threats it faces, it may 

be more efficient for the Service to 

address the significance question first, 

or the status question first. Thus, if the 

Service determines that a portion of the 

range is not significant, the Service need 

not determine whether the species is 

threatened or endangered there; if the 

Service determines that the species is 

not threatened or endangered in a 

portion of its range, the Service need not 

determine if that portion is significant. 

The terms ‘‘resiliency,’’

‘‘redundancy,’’ and ‘‘representation’’ are 

intended to be indicators of the 

conservation value of portions of the 

range (Schaffer and Stein 2000). 

Resiliency of a species allows the 

species to recover from periodic 

disturbance. A species will likely be 

more resilient if large populations exist 

in high-quality habitat that is 

distributed throughout the range of the 

species in such a way as to capture the 

environmental variability found within 

the range of the species. It is likely that 

the larger size of a population will help 

contribute to the viability of the species 

overall. Thus, a portion of the range of 

a species may make a meaningful 

contribution to the resiliency of the 

species if the area is relatively large and 

contains particularly high-quality 

habitat or if its location or 

characteristics make it less susceptible 

to certain threats than other portions of 

the range. When evaluating whether or 

how a portion of the range contributes 

to resiliency of the species, it may help 

to evaluate the historical value of the 

portion and how frequently the portion 

is used by the species. In addition, the 

portion may contribute to resiliency for 

other reasons—for instance, it may 

contain an important concentration of 

certain types of habitat that are 

necessary for the species to carry out its 

life-history functions, such as breeding, 

feeding, migration, dispersal, or 

wintering. 

Redundancy of populations may be 

needed to provide a margin of safety for 

the species to withstand catastrophic 

events. This does not mean that any 

portion that provides redundancy is a 

significant portion of the range of a 

species. The idea is to conserve enough 

areas of the range such that random 

perturbations in the system act on only 

a few populations. Therefore, each area 

must be examined based on whether 

that area provides an increment of 

redundancy that is important to the 

conservation of the species. 

Adequate representation ensures that 

the species’ adaptive capabilities are 

conserved. Specifically, the portion 

should be evaluated to see how it 

contributes to the genetic diversity of 

the species. The loss of genetically 

based diversity may substantially 

reduce the ability of the species to 

respond and adapt to future 

environmental changes. A peripheral 

population may contribute meaningfully 

to representation if there is evidence 

that it provides genetic diversity due to 

its location on the margin of the species’

habitat requirements. 

To determine whether the NRM DPS 

is threatened in any significant portion 

of its range, we first consider how the 

concepts of resiliency, representation, 

and redundancy apply to the 

conservation of this particular DPS. A 

number of available documents provide 

insight into this discussion, including 

the 1994 EIS on the reintroduction 

efforts in Central Idaho and the GYA 

(Service 1994), the 1987 recovery plan 

(Service 1987), our 2001/2002 review of 

the recovery goals (Bangs 2002), 

Interagency Annual Reports (Service et 

al. 1989–2007), and numerous 

professional publications (Soule et al. 

2003, p. 1238; Scott et al. 2005, p. 383; 

Vucetich et al. 2006, p. 1383; Carroll et 

al. 2006, pp. 369–371; Waples et al. 

2007, p. 964; see Service et al. 2007, pp. 

213–230). 

In the case of this final rule, because 

we anticipate that the 2007 Wyoming 

wolf management law will be fully in 

effect within 20 days of publication of 

this final rule and that the 2007 

Wyoming wolf management plan will 

then be legally authorized by Wyoming 

statutes (Hall 2007), no portion of the 

NRM DPS currently occupied by 

persistent wolf packs (i.e., core recovery 

areas) warrants further consideration. 

Through our analysis (see Factor D 

section) we have determined that 

Montana’s, Idaho’s and Wyoming’s 

plans meet the Act’s requirements for 

delisting because these States have 

proposed management objectives that 

would maintain at least 10 breeding 

pairs and 100 wolves per State by 

managing for a safety margin of at least 

15 breeding pairs and at least 150 

wolves in each State. Thus, the absence 

of threats means that the species is 

neither endangered nor threatened in 

these portions of its range. 

However, if the provisions in the 

Wyoming wolf law are not fulfilled and 

the final certifications are not made 

within 20 days of publication of the 

final rule, we will withdraw this final 

rule before its effective date. In this 

situation, the 2003 Wyoming State law 

and wolf management plan would be 

the regulatory mechanisms in Wyoming. 

As we have previously determined, the 

2003 Wyoming State law and wolf 

management plan are not adequate to 

ensure that Wyoming’s numerical and 

distributional share of a recovered NRM 

wolf population will be conserved 

(Williams 2004; 71 FR 43410, August 1, 

2006). Thus, we have decided to further 

consider the portion of the NRM DPS in 

northwestern Wyoming, outside the 

National Park Service lands, in the 

following analysis. 

Through an abundance of caution, we 

have identified two areas within the 

NRM DPS as warranting further 

consideration to determine if they are 

significant portions of the range that 

may be threatened or endangered. These 

areas include (1) northwest Wyoming, 

outside the National Park Service lands, 

and (2) portions of the NRM DPS within 

97 to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) of the 

habitat currently occupied by persistent 

wolf packs (i.e. core recovery areas) 

which are routinely used by dispersing 

wolves. For each of these areas we 

evaluate whether they are significant 

per the above definition and, if 

significant, we weigh whether they are 

threatened or endangered. 

The area of northwest Wyoming, 

outside the National Park Service lands, 

has long been considered critical to gray 

wolf recovery in the NRM (Service 1987; 

Service 1994; 71 FR 43410, August 1, 

2006). As outlined in our 12-month 

finding (71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006), 

we believe this area is important for 

maintaining a viable, self-sustaining, 

and evolving representative metapopulation in the NRM DPS into the 

foreseeable future. We have determined 

that a fundamental part of achieving 

recovery in the NRM DPS is a welldistributed number of wolf packs and 

individual wolves among the three 

States and the three recovery zones. The 

possible loss of wolves in northwest 

Wyoming, outside the National Park 

Service lands, would meaningfully 

affect the representation, resiliency, or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10557 

redundancy of the NRM DPS, making 

this portion of the range a significant 

portion of the range. 

The portion of the NRM DPS range in 

northwest Wyoming, outside the 

National Park Service lands, is 

considered significant because it 

contains a substantial proportion of the 

secure suitable habitat in Wyoming, and 

contains many of the persistent wolf 

packs that have been documented in 

Wyoming since 1995. In 2006 this area 

supported at least 25 packs, 15 breeding 

pairs, and 175 wolves (Service et al. 

2007, Table 2). Under the provisions of 

the 2007 Wyoming wolf management 

plan, wolves in this portion of the NRM 

DPS range will be managed as trophy 

game (see Factor D) (Freudenthal 

2007a). Areas in Wyoming outside the 

Trophy Game Area have not supported 

persistent wolf packs since 1995. The 

entire Trophy Game Area, as described 

in the 2007 Wyoming wolf management 

plan, is: Northwest Wyoming beginning 

at the junction of Wyoming Highway 

120 and the Wyoming-Montana State 

line; southerly along Wyoming Highway 

120 to the Greybull River; southwesterly 

up said river to the Wood River; 

southwesterly up said river to the 

Shoshone National Forest boundary; 

southerly along said boundary to the 

Wind River Indian Reservation 

boundary; westerly, then southerly 

along said boundary to the Continental 

Divide; southeasterly along said divide 

to the Middle Fork of Boulder Creek; 

westerly down said creek to Boulder 

Creek; westerly down said creek to the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest boundary; 

northwesterly along said boundary to its 

intersection with U.S. Highway 189–

191; northwesterly along said highway 

to the intersection with U.S. Highway 

26–89–191; northerly along said 

highway to Wyoming Highway 22 in the 

town of Jackson; westerly along said 

highway to the Wyoming-Idaho State 

line; north along said state line to the 

Wyoming-Montana State line; north, 

then east along said State line to 

Wyoming Highway 120. This area 

contains about 70% (31,207 km2 [12,049 

mi2]) of the suitable wolf habitat in 

Wyoming. The significant portion of the 

NRM DPS range in northwest Wyoming 

to which this analysis applies is the 

Trophy Game Area, as described above, 

excluding the lands administered by the 

National Park Service. 

Within this portion of the NRM DPS 

range in northwestern Wyoming, 

managing human-caused mortality 

remains the primary challenge to 

maintaining a recovered wolf 

population in the foreseeable future. If 

this issue is adequately addressed, none 

of the other factors, individually or 

collectively, are likely to rise to the level 

of threatening or endangering the 

population within the foreseeable 

future. 

In 2004, we determined that problems 

with the 2003 Wyoming legislation and 

plan, and inconsistencies between the 

law and management plan did not allow 

us to approve Wyoming’s approach to 

wolf management (Williams 2004). On 

August 1, 2006, we published a 12- 

month finding describing the reasons 

why the 2003 Wyoming State law and 

wolf management plan did not provide 

the necessary regulatory mechanisms to 

assure maintenance of Wyoming’s 

numerical and distributional share of a 

recovered NRM wolf population (71 FR 

43410). 

In 2007, the Wyoming legislature 

amended State law to address Service 

concerns. Following the change in State 

law, the WFGC approved a revised wolf 

management plan (Cleveland 2007). 

This plan was then approved by the 

Service as providing adequate 

regulatory protections to conserve 

Wyoming’s portion of a recovered NRM 

DPS into the foreseeable future (Hall 

2007). We anticipate the stipulations in 

the Wyoming law will be met within the 

next 20 days following publication and 

prior to the rule being effective. Thus, 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

determine that this significant portion of 

the range is not likely to become in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future (see Factor D). 

However, if the requirements of the 

2007 Wyoming wolf management laws 

are not met, we will withdraw this final 

rule before its effective date and replace 

it with an alternate final rule 

maintaining the Act’s 1994 nonessential 

experimental population protections 

(§ 17.84 (i)) in northwestern Wyoming’s 

significant portion of the NRM DPS (See 

Factor D). The alternate final rule would 

remove the gray wolf from the 

endangered and threatened species list 

in the remainder of the NRM DPS. We 

are moving forward with this rule as 

written because we view its withdrawal 

unlikely. 

Finally, we decided to assume that 

the portions of the NRM DPS within 97 

to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) of the habitat 

currently occupied by persistent wolf 

packs (i.e. core recovery areas) which 

are routinely used by dispersing wolves 

warranted additional consideration out 

of an abundance of caution and based 

on the controversy concerning the status 

of the wolf in this area. Specifically, we 

considered: The portion of Montana east 

of I–15 and north of I–90; the portion of 

Idaho south of I–84; the remainder of 

Wyoming not considered above; and the 

portions of Oregon, Washington, and 

Utah within the NRM DPS. These 

boundaries are based largely upon our 

understanding of suitable habitat and 

the location of easily identifiable and 

understandable manmade markers and 

boundaries. The following provides our 

analysis of whether these portions of the 

range are significant. 

While wolves historically occurred 

over most of the NRM DPS, large 

portions of this area are no longer able 

to support viable wolf populations or 

breeding pairs. These areas include 

about 13 percent of theoretical suitable 

wolf habitat (as described by Oakleaf et 

al. 2006, p. 561). To the extent that any 

of these areas contain suitable habitat, 

they are small, fragmented areas where 

wolf packs cannot persist. This is why 

wolf recovery was never envisioned for 

these areas (Service 1987; Service 1994). 

We believe these areas are insignificant 

to maintaining the NRM wolf 

population’s viability because they 

make virtually no contribution to the 

species’ representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy. 

In light of the above, we conclude that 

none of the areas within 97 to 300 km 

(60 to 190 mi) of the habitat currently 

occupied by persistent wolf packs (i.e. 

core recovery areas) constitute a 

significant portion of the range. These 

areas are not likely to meaningfully 

contribute to the representation, 

resiliency, or redundancy at a level such 

that their loss would result in a decrease 

in the ability to conserve the species. As 

noted above, if we determine that a 

portion of the range is not significant, 

we need not determine whether the 

species is threatened or endangered 

there. 

In summary, we have determined that 

none of the existing or potential threats, 

either alone or in combination with 

others, are likely to cause the gray wolf 

in the NRM DPS to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or any significant portion 

of its range (assuming Wyoming’s wolf 

management law and management plan 

are allowed to become effective). On the 

basis of this evaluation, we remove the 

gray wolf in the NRM DPS from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. 

Effects of the Rule 

Promulgation of this final rule will 

affect the protections afforded to the 

NRM gray wolf DPS under the Act. 

Taking, Interstate commerce, import, 

and export of wolves from the NRM DPS 

are no longer prohibited under the Act. 

Other State and Federal laws will still 

regulate take. In addition, with the 

removal of the NRM DPS from the List 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10558 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 

Federal agencies are no longer required 

to consult with us under section 7 of the 

Act to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by 

them is not likely to jeopardize the 

species’ continued existence. This 

regulation removes the now obsolete 

nonessential experimental regulations 

designed to reduce the regulatory 

burden in parts of the NRM DPS. No 

critical habitat has been designated for 

the NRM DPS: Thus, 50 CFR 17.95 is 

not modified by this regulation. 

Delisting the NRM DPS is expected to 

have positive effects in terms of 

management flexibility to the State, 

Tribal, and local governments. 

The full protections of the Act will 

still continue to apply to wolves in 

other portions of the lower 48 States 

outside the NRM DPS and the Western 

Great Lakes DPS. The Western Great 

Lakes DPS was established and removed 

from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife in a separate action 

on February 8, 2007 (72 CFR 6052). 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in 

the 1988 reauthorization, requires us to 

implement a system, in cooperation 

with the States, to monitor for not less 

than 5 years the status of all species that 

have recovered and been removed from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 

17.12). The purpose of this postdelisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify 

that a recovered species remains secure 

from risk of extinction after it no longer 

has the protections of the Act. Should 

relisting be required, we may make use 

of the emergency listing authorities 

under section 4(b)(7) of the Act to 

prevent a significant risk to the wellbeing of any recovered species. 

Monitoring Techniques—The NRM 

area was intensively monitored for 

wolves even before wolves were 

documented in Montana in the mid1980s (Weaver 1978; Ream and Mattson 

1982, pp. 379–381; Kaminski and 

Hansen 1984, p. v). Numerous Federal, 

State, and Tribal agencies, universities, 

and special interest groups assisted in 

those various efforts. Since 1979, wolves 

have been monitored using standard 

techniques including collecting, 

evaluating, and following-up on 

suspected observations of wolves or 

wolf signs by natural resource agencies 

or the public; howling or snow tracking 

surveys conducted by the Service, our 

university and agency cooperators, 

volunteers, or interested special interest 

groups; and by capturing, radiocollaring, and monitoring wolves. We 

only consider wolves and wolf packs as 

confirmed when Federal, State, or Tribal 

agency verification is made by field staff 

that can reliably identify wolves and 

wolf signs. 

The wolf monitoring system works in 

a hierarchical nature. Typically we 

receive a report (either directly or 

passed along by another agency) that 

wolves or their signs were observed. We 

make no judgment whether the report 

seems credible or not and normally just 

note the general location of that 

observation. Unless breeding results, 

reports of single animals are not 

important unless tied to other reports or 

unusual observations that elicit concern 

(e.g., a wolf reported feeding on a 

livestock carcass). Lone wolves can 

wander long distances over a short 

period of time (Mech and Boitani 2003, 

pp. 14–15) and may be almost 

impossible to find again or confirm. 

However, the patterns and clusters of 

those individual reports are very 

informative and critical to subsequent 

agency decisions about where to focus 

agency searches for wolf pack activity. 

When we receive multiple reports of 

multiple individuals that indicate 

possible territoriality and pair bonding 

(the early stage of pack formation), or a 

report of multiple wolves that seems 

highly credible (usually made by a 

biologist or experienced outdoorsperson), we typically notify the nearest 

Federal, State, or Tribal natural 

resource/land management agency and 

ask them to be on the alert for possible 

wolf activity during the normal course 

of their field activities. Once they locate 

areas of suspected wolf activity, we may 

ask experienced field biologists to 

search the area for wolf signs (tracks, 

howling, scats, ungulate kills). 

Depending on the type of activity 

confirmed, field crews may decide to 

capture and radio-collar the wolves. 

Radio-collared wolves are then located 

from the air 1 to 4 times per month 

dependent on a host of factors including 

funding, personnel, aircraft availability, 

weather, and other priorities. At the end 

of the year, we compile agencyconfirmed wolf observations to estimate 

the number and location of adult wolves 

and pups that were likely alive on 

December 31 of that year. These data are 

then summarized by packs to indicate 

overall population size, composition, 

and distribution. This level of wildlife 

monitoring is intensive and the results 

are relatively accurate estimates of wolf 

population distribution and structure 

(Service et al. 2007, Table 1–4, Figure 1–

4). This monitoring strategy has been 

used to estimate the NRM wolf 

population for over 20 years. 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as 

well as Washington, Oregon and Utah, 

have committed to continue monitoring 

wolf populations, according to their 

State wolf management plans (See State 

plans in Factor D) or in other 

cooperative agreements, using 

techniques similar to those used by the 

Service and its cooperators (which has 

included the States, Tribes, and USDA–

WS—the same agencies that will be 

managing and monitoring wolves postdelisting). The States have committed to 

continue to conduct wolf population 

monitoring through the mandatory 5- 

year PDM period that is required by the 

Act (Idaho 2002, p. 35; Montana 2003, 

pp. 63, 78; Wyoming 2007, p. 12). The 

States also have committed to publish 

the results of their monitoring efforts in 

annual wolf reports as has been done 

since 1989 by the Service and its 

cooperators (Service et al. 1989–2007). 

Other States and Tribes within the DPS 

adjacent to Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming also have participated in this 

interagency cooperative wolf monitoring 

system for at least the past decade, and 

their plans commit them to continue to 

report wolf activity in their State and 

coordinate those observations with 

other States. The annual reports have 

also documented all aspects of the wolf 

management program including staffing 

and funding, legal issues, population 

monitoring, control to reduce livestock 

and pet damage, research (predator-prey 

interactions, livestock-wolf conflict 

prevention, disease and health 

monitoring, publications, etc.) and 

public outreach. 

Service Review of the Post-Delisting 

Status of the Wolf Population—To 

ascertain wolf population distribution 

and structure and to analyze if the wolf 

population might require a Service-led 

status review (to determine whether it 

should again be listed under the Act), 

we intend to review the State and any 

Tribal annual wolf reports for the first 

five years after delisting. The status of 

the NRM wolf population will be 

estimated by estimating the numbers of 

packs, breeding pairs, and total numbers 

of wolves in mid-winter by State and by 

recovery area throughout the postdelisting monitoring period (Service et 

al 2007, Table 4, Figure 1). By 

evaluating the techniques used and the 

results of those wolf monitoring efforts, 

the Service can decide whether further 

action, including relisting is warranted. 

In addition, the States and Tribes are 

investigating other, perhaps more 

accurate and less expensive, ways to 

help estimate and describe wolf pack 

distribution and abundance (Kunkel et 

al. 2005; Ausband 2006; Mitchell et al. 

in press; Service et al. 2007, Figure 1, 

Table 4). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10559 

Other survey methods and data can 

become the ‘biological equivalents’ of 

the breeding pair definition currently 

used to measure recovery (Mitchell et 

al. in press). Those State and Tribal 

investigations also include alternative 

ways to estimate the status of the wolf 

population and the numbers of breeding 

pairs that are as accurate, but less 

expensive, than those that are currently 

used (Ausband 2006; Mitchell et al. in 

press). Although not compelled by the 

Act, the State will likely continue to 

publish their annual wolf population 

estimates, in cooperation with National 

Parks and Tribes, after the 5-year 

mandatory wolf population monitoring 

required by the Act is over because of 

mandatory reporting requirements in 

Federal funding and grant programs and 

the high local and national public and 

scientific interest in NRM wolves. 

We fully recognize and anticipate that 

State and Tribal laws regarding wolves 

and State and Tribal management will 

change through time as new knowledge 

becomes available as the States and 

Tribes gain additional experience at 

wolf management and conservation. We 

will base any analysis of whether a 

status review and relisting are 

warranted upon the best scientific and 

commercial data available regarding 

wolf distribution, abundance, and 

threats in the NRM DPS. For the 5-year 

PDM period, the best source of that 

information will be the States’ annual or 

other wolf reports and publications. We 

intend to post those annual State wolf 

reports and our annual review and 

comment on the status of the wolf 

population in the NRM DPS on our Web 

site (http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/) by 

approximately April 1 of each following 

year. During our annual analysis of the 

States’ annual reports (which will 

continue for 5 years), we also intend to 

comment on any threats that may have 

increased during the previous year, such 

as significant changes in a State 

regulatory framework, habitat, diseases, 

decreases in prey abundance, increases 

in wolf-livestock conflict, or other 

natural and man-caused factors. 

Our analysis and response for PDM is 

to track changes in wolf abundance, 

distribution, and threats to the 

population. Four scenarios could lead 

us to initiate a status review and 

analysis of threats to determine if 

relisting is warranted including: (1) If 

the wolf population for any one State 

falls below the minimum NRM wolf 

population recovery level of 10 breeding 

pairs of wolves and 100 wolves in either 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming at the 

end of the year; (2) if the portion of the 

wolf population in Montana, Idaho, or 

Wyoming falls below 15 breeding pairs 

or 150 wolves at the end of the year in 

any one of those States for 3 consecutive 

years; (3) if the wolf population in 

Wyoming outside of YNP falls below 7 

breeding pairs for 3 consecutive years; 

or (4) if a change in State law or 

management objectives would 

significantly increase the threat to the 

wolf population. All such reviews 

would be made available for public 

review and comment, including peer 

review by select species experts. 

Additionally, if any of these scenarios 

occurred during the mandatory 5-year 

PDM period, the PDM period would be 

extended 5 additional years from that 

point in that State. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant and has not reviewed 

this rule under Executive Order 12866 

(E.O. 12866). OMB bases its 

determination upon the following four 

criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S. C. 3501 et seq.). 

The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3 

(c) define a collection of information as 

the obtaining of information by or for an 

agency by means of identical questions 

posed to, or identical reporting, 

recordkeeping, or disclosure 

requirements imposed on, 10 or more 

persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 

1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more 

persons’’ refers to the persons to whom 

a collection of information is addressed 

by the agency within any 12-month 

period. For purposes of this definition, 

employees of the Federal Government 

are not included. The Service may not 

conduct or sponsor and you are not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

This rule does not contain any 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. As proposed under the 

Post-Delisting Monitoring section above, 

populations will be monitored by 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming in 

accordance with their Wolf Management 

Plans. We do not anticipate a need to 

request data or other information from 

10 or more persons during any 12- 

month period to satisfy monitoring 

information needs. If it becomes 

necessary to collect information from 10 

or more non-Federal individuals, 

groups, or organizations per year, we 

will first obtain information collection 

approval from OMB. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Service has determined that 

Environmental Assessments and 

Environmental Impact Statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

NEPA, need not be prepared in 

connection with actions adopted 

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A 

notice outlining the Service’s reasons 

for this determination was published in 

the Federal Register on October 25, 

1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. As this 

final rule is not expected to significantly 

affect energy supplies, distribution, or 

use, this action is not a significant 

energy action and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 

coordinated the proposed rule and this 

final rule with the affected Tribes. 

Throughout several years of 

development of earlier related rules and 

the proposed rule, we have endeavored 

to consult with Native American tribes 

and Native American organizations in 

order to both (1) provide them with a 

complete understanding of the proposed 

changes, and (2) to understand their 

concerns with those changes. We have 

fully considered their comments during 

the development of this final rule. If 

requested, we will conduct additional 

consultations with Native American 

tribes and multitribal organizations 

subsequent to this final rule in order to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

10560 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

facilitate the transition to State and 

tribal management of gray wolves 

within the NRM DPS. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this document is available upon 

request from the Western Gray Wolf 

Recovery Coordinator (see ADDRESSES

above). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11(h), the entry for ‘‘Wolf, 

gray’’ under MAMMALS in the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range Vertebrate population where 

endangered or threatened Status When listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Wolf, gray .......... Canis lupus ....... Holarctic ............ U.S.A., conterminous (lower 48) 

States, except: (1) Where listed as 

an experimental population below; 

(2) Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, 

eastern North Dakota (that portion 

north and east of the Missouri River 

upstream to Lake Sakakawea and 

east of the centerline of Highway 83 

from Lake Sakakawea to the Canadian border), eastern South Dakota 

(that portion north and east of the 

Missouri River), northern Iowa, 

northern Illinois, and northern Indiana (those portions of IA, IL, and IN 

north of the centerline of Interstate 

Highway 80), and northwestern 

Ohio (that portion north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 80 and 

west of the Maumee River at Toledo); and (3) Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, eastern Washington (that 

portion of Washington east of the 

Centerline of Highway 97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa and that portion of Washington east of the centerline of Highway 395 south of 

Mesa), eastern Oregon (portion of 

Oregon east of the centerline of 

Highway 395 and Highway 78 north 

of Burns Junction and that portion 

of Oregon east of the centerline of 

Highway 95 south of Buirns Junction), and north-central Utah (that 

portion of Utah east of the centerline of Highway 84 and north of 

Highway 80). Mexico.

E 1, 6, 13, 

15, 35 

N/A N/A 

Do ............... ...... do ............... ...... do ............... U.S.A. (portions of AZ, NM, and TX— 

see § 17.84(k)).

XN 631 N/A 17.84(k) 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * § 17.84 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 17.84 by removing 

paragraphs (i) and (n). 

Dated: February 13, 2008. 

H. Dale Hall, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 08–798 Filed 2–21–08; 9:49 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2